Stephen Crabb: As a result of demographic changes, and without any policy change or special initiatives, the forecast incapacity benefit caseload will fall from2.7 million today to about 2.36 million in 2015-16. Does not that rather handy head start of 340,000 make the Minister's promise to cut the incapacity benefit count by 1 million both unambitious and a little misleading?

Terry Rooney: My hon. Friend will know that there is a very low employment rate among people with mental illness. Undoubtedly, there is a problem with employer attitudes to thatclient group, so what are his Department and other Departments doing to try to take that agenda forward?

David Laws: The Minister said last week that, for every £800 spent on pathways, the taxpayer is saved some £8,000 as a result of people returning to employment. If that is the case, why have Ministers briefed that they do not have enough money to roll pathways out for all claimants and may even have to ration it? Is it not bizarre that the Government can find billions of pounds of additional finance for benefits and tax credits, which can keep people in dependency, but they cannot find the money to get people back to work in this way?

Jim Murphy: I do not know whether that is another of the endless spending commitments from the hon. Gentleman, whom I had previously thought was on the moderate wing, if there is such a thing, on his party's spending commitments. The roll-out of pathways has been shown to be the single most successful initiative ever in supporting people while they leave incapacity benefit and take up the chance to work. However, we have to go much further, which is why, last week, we announced the national roll-out of pathways throughout the country by 2008, so that everyone on incapacity benefit and the new employment and support allowance will have the chance to participate in that very successful initiative.

Philip Hammond: Conservative Members are keen to see the benefits of the pathways roll-out being achieved not only by diverting new claimants into work as soon as possible, but by engaging existing IB claimants. In his statement to the House on 24 January, the Secretary of State said:
	"Over the next few years, we will ask existing claimants to attend a work-focused interview and agree an action plan to take steps to return to work."—[ Official Report, 24 January 2006;Vol. 441, c. 1307.]
	Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government's policy and that a requirement for existing claimants to attend an interview and agree a plan will be introduced as soon as sufficient resources are available?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman invites me to agree with my Secretary of State, and I am happy to do so. We are piloting ways of ensuring that the pathways scheme supports current incapacity benefit claimants. As we set out in the Green Paper and subsequent statements, we will look to migrate the existing caseload of about 2.6 million across to be supported by the employment and support allowance. Of course, in the interim, individuals currently on incapacity benefit can volunteer, if they so wish.

Bob Blizzard: I received aletter from my hon. Friend's Department last week, informing me that pathways to work would start in my constituency next year. Based on the pilots that we have had so far, what impact can I expect that to have onthe number of people on incapacity benefit in my constituency?

Jim Murphy: That would not be the most effective way in which we could roll out pathways support across the country. The evidence is that, if someone is on incapacity benefit for two years, they are more likely to die or retire than ever to find a job. As a priority, we will focus on those who are newest to incapacity benefit or employment support allowance, but we will not neglect those who were placed on incapacity benefit as a matter of public policy by the Opposition when they were in government. We know that it is an ambitious target to change incapacity benefit numbers by1 million, but it was achieved in the 1980s and 1990s by the Opposition. We intend to achieve the same levelof change in incapacity benefit numbers, only in the opposite direction.

John Hutton: We will not go through any bogus process. I believe strongly that it is possible to make such efficiency improvements without reducing the quality of the service that we provide to the public. Despite the fact that there have been problems inone or two parts of the country, overall customer satisfaction levels remain incredibly high for the service delivered across the Department, and we need to remember that and ensure that it is our No. 1 priority.

Tim Boswell: Of course we welcome sensible use of technology to sustain and even improve services to vulnerable people. However, it is clear that many of them will have experienced—the Secretary of State has tacitly acknowledged this—serious declines in service delivery, including the initial meltdown of the service to jobseeker's allowance claimants last autumn, continuing dysfunction in the CSA, and continuing poor morale and industrial relations problems in the Department itself. In the light of all that, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that Gershon emphasises the maintenance of service quality as much as head count reduction, and doeshe share Gershon's view that they are of equal importance?

Mark Pritchard: I can understand why the Minister does not want to talk about unemployment rates in Shropshire and would rather talk about the county's employment rates. Is he aware that the Office for National Statistics says that between May 2005 and May 2006, unemployment rose by an astonishing30 per cent.? I am not blaming the Minister, but will he and his colleagues liaise with the Secretary of State for Defence about the defence training review and safeguarding 2,500 much-needed defence sector jobs in Shropshire?

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there have been some unfortunate increases in unemployment and redundancies in his constituency recently; of course, we all regret that. His constituents will need to know from us that the Government are pursuing the right economic policies to help those people back into work as quickly as possible and that my Department is pursuing the right policies in terms of giving them individual assistance back into work. He may be aware that there are 1,400 vacancies in Shropshire and that eight employers in his areahave recently made 440 job announcements. His constituents will want to be sure that we are not going to return to the claimant levels that they experienced before—2,600 now, as opposed to 4,300 in 1997 and 12,500 in 1986.

John Hutton: The injustice that many women have experienced with the basic state pension needs a proper solution and we have proposed one. Lord Turner proposed a series of changes, which would also have taken effect from 2010, because he and the Government were considering long-term reform of the pension system. I strongly believe that reforms tothe contributory principle will have a much more immediate impact than the introduction of a residency test, which, by its nature, would only build up a series of future accruals. It would not affect the position of women retiring in 2010, especially that key cohort of women aged 45 and over, who basically have no time left to acquire a full basic state pension.
	Pension credit will largely cover women who retire now without a basic state pension and, from 2010, we will move to a system whereby more women retire with a full basic state pension in their own right. I believe that that strikes the right balance between equity and affordability.

Nigel Waterson: Has the Minister seen the Aon Consulting survey, which shows that only a third of final salary schemes remain open to new members and that more than 70 per cent. expect to close in three years? Has he, like me, received representations from employers' organisations on behalf of responsible employers who want to keeptheir final salary schemes going by amending their conditions yet feel undermined by the Government's sweetheart deal with the public sector unions?

Jane Kennedy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in this question, particularly as he has expressed his disappointment in the Conservative party being unable to maintain its regeneration initiative that was launched in Liverpool. I have seen the lives of many hundreds of my constituents transformed by the reforms that this Governmenthave introduced. Will my hon. Friend meet me and representatives of the voluntary and charitable sector in Liverpool—who are working exceptionally well with some of the hardest to help groups—to look at how the employment zone initiative is structured and to talk about innovative ways in which we could improve how it is working?

David Heath: Whether we look at the Bill in electronic form or on paper, there are key areas that we cannot read simply because they have not been included. Examples include the proposals to withhold benefits from those who do not comply with its conditions, and the regulations that will follow in statutory instruments. Does the Minister agree that, if the House is to understand fully whatthe Bill is about, it is important to publish those regulations—at least in draft form—before the Bill's Second Reading?

Robert Wilson: I thank the Minister for that answer. According to the House of Commons Library, unemployment has risen by 23 per cent. in my constituency. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested last week that, if the number of unemployed people were added to the number on incapacity benefit, the resulting inactivity rate would be worse than that of France and about the same as that of Germany—that is, pretty dire. Is not that an indictment of a Chancellor who has blocked reform while spending billions of pounds on keeping millions of people in the grip of state dependency?

Jim Murphy: I know that the hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House, but that is a ridiculous claim for him to make about this Government's economic record. For him to compare today's unemployment levels to the time when 3 million unemployed was "a price worth paying" is utterly ridiculous. There are now more people in work in the United Kingdom than ever before. In the last quarter, 10,000 more people found work every week, and there are still 600,000 vacancies in the economy. Of course, we have much more to do before we reach our 80 per cent. employment target, but we are now a million miles away from the position that we inherited, withits vast, grotesque and indefensible levels of unemployment throughout the country.

Jim Murphy: Jobcentre Plus and other Government agencies of the Department for Work and Pensions will, of course, play their full part in supporting people who want the chance to get back into work in Hemel Hempstead and elsewhere. In a wider sense, we are also continuing our review on the skills agenda to ensure that those who do not have the skills to be actively involved in the labour market at the moment do so in the future. It is a particular problem for people who are over 50, where the skills gap is markedly different.

James Plaskitt: In addition to the help that the Department gives via the socialfund, we are now delivering the £36 million growth fund, which will increase the amount of affordable credit available via credit unions and community development financial institutions. That will help tens of thousands of people to avoid having recourse to doorstep lenders and loan sharks.

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have got previous on this—I campaigned very hard on the subject in my previous capacity, when I served on the Treasury Select Committee—and he will know thatthe Government have responded to some of the issues that the Committee raised and some changes were made by virtue of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which has improved the situation. In my personal view, although this is no longer my ministerial responsibility, a great deal more is still to be done.

John Hutton: I have read the report, and we agree with it, which is why we are extending pathways to work to every part of the United Kingdom, so that everyone will have access, where appropriate, to CBT.

Anne McGuire: One reason why we are testing this approach through the pilots is to ensure that people such as those to whom my hon. Friend referred have far more control over their lives, and we are pulling together some of the resources available to them, including access to work. We look forward to seeing the outcome of the pilots, so that they can underpin the development of a far more individual and "in-control" approach for disabled people in Britain.

Anne McGuire: We have already made significant progress. New claims are down by a third since 1997 and in the year to November 2005, the number of people on incapacity benefits was down by 61,000. We are building on that success through the national roll-out of pathways to work and the measures announced in our Welfare Reform Bill. That will make a significant contribution to making a reality of our aim to reduce, over a decade, the number of those claiming incapacity benefits by1 million.

Anne McGuire: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the earlier exchange between the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), and Members was far better live than it was on the monitor. As the hon. Gentleman has asked a specific and detailed question, it would be appropriate for me to give a written response at a future date, but he will doubtless be delighted to know that the number of incapacity benefit recipients in his constituency has already fallen by 5 per cent.

Paul Rowen: If he will makea statement on compensation for people with mesothelioma.

Chris Bryant: Many of us are delighted that the Government are moving to overturn the decision in the Barker case, but do we not needa swift and simple compensation scheme—unlikethe miners' compensation scheme, which is over-burdensome—for mesothelioma sufferers? Many such sufferers may have only 18 months from the moment when they know that they are ill with the disease to the moment when, sadly, they die. Will the Government move swiftly on this issue?

Jack Straw: The ministerial code makes it clear that Ministers must give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. It is obviously helpful if any correction necessary to anything said on the Floor of the House is made clear, for example, through awritten ministerial statement. In the light of my correspondence with the hon. Gentleman and his suggestions, I am currently considering the terms in which guidance should be given to Departments on how corrections might best be put on the record, taking into account how high profile the original error was. I am also in touch with the editor of the  Official Report as to how corrections might be noted and cross-referenced in  Hansard.

Theresa May: I am grateful for the positive tone in which the Leader of the House is addressing an issue that vexes all Members on both sides of the House, but let me also give an example. On 19 April, during Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said that in the Thames Valley strategic health authority area—as it then was—there were no patients waiting longer than 13 weeks for out-patient appointments. In fact, that was not the case: a constituent of mine had been waiting18 weeks. I wrote to the Prime Minister; he did not reply to me. The Secretary of State for Health replied to me, saying that when the Prime Minister had said on19 April that "today" there were no patients waiting longer than 13 weeks, he had meant that on31 December 2005 there were no patients waiting longer than 13 weeks.
	As of the end of March, there were more than 500 patients waiting more than 13 weeks for out-patient appointments in the Thames Valley area, so the figure would not even have been accurate on the basis of the most recent data relating to the date to which the Prime Minister referred.
	Do not Ministers have a real responsibility to the House, and to the public who read reports of our proceedings, to ensure that the information given is accurate? Does not the biggest responsibility rest with the Prime Minister, who should be the one to ensure the highest standards of all in the information that he gives?

COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY

John Reid: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government's strategy on counter-terrorism—but first, if you will allow me, I would like to express again my personal condolences, and, I am sure, those of the whole House, to all those who suffered as a result of the London bombings on7 July last year. The first anniversary of those tragic events has just passed, and we witnessed on Friday the very moving and solemn expressions of the whole nation's remembrance.
	It is right that last week focused on commemoration, but it is also right that people, including the survivors and families of victims of the 7 July attacks, want to know more about the current and future terrorist threat and what we are doing to combat it.
	Following 7 July, the Government said that we would provide three things: an outline explanation of our strategy to combat terrorism, an explanation of the system of national threat levels, and a statement onthe lessons learned from the 7 July attacks for the emergency responders. Today I am fulfilling the first and second of those promises. I will be providing a statement on lessons learned later.
	The Government are necessarily limited in what they can say about our counter-terrorism measures, because some elements must obviously remain secret, but I will say as much as is prudent, as we have tried to do in the publications that we have issued today.
	The counter-terrorism strategy—known in Government as Contest—was first developed in 2003 and is continuously reviewed in the light of developments. It has been referred to publicly on Government websites. It is wide-ranging, involving the whole of Government, international partners, agencies, including the police and intelligence services and, most importantly, all our citizens in the United Kingdom from all our communities.
	Sadly, terrorism is not a new phenomenon, for the United Kingdom or for the world. Even in our time, terrorism has disguised itself as many things in different places—falsely claiming, for example, the mantle of socialism, nationalism and even in some places Christianity. Therefore, terrorism is not the monopoly of any religion or ideology. None the less, the new manifestation of international terrorism that we now face is different from previous threats to the UK in some crucial ways.
	The first is the global nature of the threat. It is no longer possible to separate the domestic and international dimensions of the threats that we are facing. The realities of modern life, including mass migration, ease of travel and information flows, mean that the terrorists' arena covers a very wide range of targets in a very wide range of countries. Secondly, whereas in the past it was possible to link terrorist attacks to particular groups, networks or individuals, that is no longer the case. The new threat comes from a range of individuals operating in global networks.
	A third characteristic of the new threats is the sheer scale of human destruction that the attackers want to cause. They intend to cause mass casualties. They murder indiscriminately men, women and children. They make no distinction between combatants and civilians. They lay waste to people irrespective of their background or religion, and they are prepared to use themselves as the suicidal means of attack—witness the events of 7 July in London. All those features have a major impact on how we might prepare for and deal with terror. In particular, the advent of the suicide bomber introduces the presumption that we must intervene at an early stage.
	A fourth characteristic is that the people involved in those terrorist attacks are driven by a very particular violent and extremist ideology. A common thread running through terrorist attacks over the past decade has been a claim by those involved that they have been acting in defence of Islam. It is crucial that we understand that the extreme interpretation espoused by Islamist terrorists to support their actions is not an interpretation of Islam that is shared by the vast majority of Muslims in the UK and abroad. That majority rejects both extremism and violence. The dividing line in the fight against terrorism is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is between evil and those opposing evil. It is not a clash of civilisations, but a struggle for civilisation against indiscriminate, evil terrorists and terrorism.
	I now turn to the strategy itself. It is structured around four principal strands, sometimes known as the four Ps: prevent, pursue, protect and prepare. The four pillars of the strategy are not mutually exclusive. They are closely linked and together form a balanced and integrated approach.
	The first pillar is prevent. It is obviously essential to tackle terrorism with all the levers at our disposal. Internationally, for instance, the use of our brave armed forces may be a necessary part of fighting terrorism, but it will never be sufficient on its own. We also need to work to eliminate social and economic inequalities, through aid, through trade, and through our efforts to help resolve political problems, whether in the middle east or elsewhere. So too, domestically, we recognise the complexity of the phenomenon. Effective security measures, intelligence and policing are essential. But ultimately, modern terrorism will be defeated only by addressing the political and social issues by a debate about values, by democracy and by public solidarity. That is why we are working with all communities to tackle the social factors underlying radicalisation, to block the ways radicalisation takes place, and to counter the radicals' arguments. But it is not just the Government that have a role in preventing radicalisation. Muslims and the wider community in the UK must also play their part if we are to be successful.
	Last summer's "Preventing Extremism Together" campaign showed what can be done when Government and communities work together. There were often differences in opinion, arguments and discussion, but dialogue continued and difficult problems were faced head on, not ignored or avoided. As a result we all learned from each other and our relationship was strengthened. We need to build on those initiatives and also to focus our attention more closely on places such as prisons and universities where we know that radicalisation is more likely to take place.
	We must also ensure that the social and economic inequalities that give rise to a sense of alienation because people feel deprived of life chances are reduced and ultimately overcome. That work has been prioritised across Government and is overseen by a Cabinet-level Committee that will drive it forward.
	The second strand—the pursue strand—is, as the name suggests, concerned with pursuing terrorists and those who support them. This section of the document that we published today sets out how intelligence is used by the police and security agencies to piece together the best understanding of the threats we face. A word about intelligence: I believe that as long as the threat against the UK remains, intelligence will play a crucial role in protecting us against future terrorist attacks, but the plain fact is that intelligence by its very nature is often imperfect. It is very important that we all—inside and outside the House—understand that there can never be 100 per cent. guarantees, and that the risk of future terrorist attack remains.
	The Government's top priority—and that of the police and the intelligence agencies—is, obviously, public safety. Four attacks have been disrupted since July 2005. That is why the Government fully support the police and the Security Service when they are required to make very difficult decisions on the basis of intelligence. Intelligence is rarely complete, is never perfect and is often fragmentary and partial. There may be situations in which the police simply do not have the luxury of delaying action to firm up on the intelligence. That is the reality of the approach, and I believe that everyone in all our communities ought to recognise the circumstances in which our intelligence agencies and police operate.
	Prosecution is, and will remain, our preferred way of dealing with terrorists and disrupting their activity. Prosecution, however, is not always possible. Information and knowledge are not necessarily evidence. When, as is sometimes the case, the available intelligence shows that an individual is involved in terrorism, but does not provide enough evidence to secure a prosecution, we must have other options available to us to protect public safety. Those options include deportation, where the person concerned is a foreign national and a threat to the UK, excluding foreign nationals who threaten our national security from entering the UK, asset freezing and control orders.
	The use of control orders has been much in the news recently following the High Court judgment on 28 June that the specific obligations in six control orders were incompatible with the individuals' right to liberty under article 5 of the European convention on human rights. We are appealing that judgment in the Court of Appeal. All existing control orders remain in force, and I will continue to make new control orders where I consider it necessary to do so to protect the people of this country.
	The protect strand is concerned with reducing the vulnerability of the UK and UK interests overseas to a terrorist attack. We have a history of protecting our critical national infrastructure from attacks, and over the years we have built up a strong partnership with both public and private industry in the UK, as well as with our international partners.
	Among the strands of work that are being taken forward in that area are programmes of work to strengthen the UK's border security and tracking systems and to harden our transport systems and key transport hubs against terrorist attack, and the well-established programmes of work with those who own and operate our key utilities and services.
	The prepare strand is all about ensuring that if a terrorist attack occurs we are as ready as we can be to deal with the consequences. This strand involves a huge number of stakeholders who deliver resilience across public, private and voluntary sectors. The work is underpinned by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which establishes an effective civil protection framework for the 21st century. In the Contest document we have focused on those work streams that enhance our resilience against terrorist attack.
	We have outlined the main elements of our strategy in the first of the documents that we have published today. We have also referred to the threat and response levels in the United Kingdom. The second document published today explains the threat and response levels, what they are and how they are used in the United Kingdom. This is the first time that any Government have made public in this way the system deciding threat levels. We considered this carefully. We have decided to inform the general public about the process so that it can be better understood and more transparent. We also hope that it instils confidence and trust.
	At the same time, the existing seven-point threat level system will, with effect from 1 August, be simplified to a five-point system. Though it clearly remains of most direct use to those directly involved in protecting national security, it is of obvious interest to members of the general public. From 1 August, the five threat levels will be: low, which means that an attack is unlikely; moderate, which means that an attack is possible, but not likely; substantial, which means that an attack is a strong possibility; severe, which means that an attack is highly likely; and critical, which means that an attack is expected imminently.
	I again stress two things. First, this is not an exact science. It involves human judgment. No one can predict the future; we can only make reasoned judgments. Secondly, threat levels are applied to the United Kingdom as a whole—the national threat level—in order to summarise the overall threat of a terrorist attack to the United Kingdom. There may be variations within the general threat level in respect of important sectors of the economy, and sometimes individuals, events or places.
	Since August 2005, the national threat level has been—and remains today—"severe (general)". Under the new system to be introduced from 1 August, that will equate to severe. From 1 August, information about the national threat level will be available to the general public on the Security Service and Home Office websites. But the importance of the public remaining vigilant at all times and reporting any suspicious activities is still the key message.
	Finally, the way in which the Government and sectors of our infrastructure respond to such threat levels needs to take into account both the national and the more specific threat picture, and, in addition, the importance and vulnerability of particular sites. The response structure has three broad bands related to different levels of threat. These are set out in the document that I referred to.
	I should stress that there is no national response level. Response levels are set by security practitioners in each sector, are determined by specific assessments of risk, and may vary from site to site. We will not therefore be announcing them. To do so would only assist any would-be attackers. However, we will keep the response level system under review, with the Security Service and our security practitioners, to ensure the maximum practical congruity between threat levels and response levels.
	Through the publication of both documents, my aims are simple: to bring further transparency and understanding of the nature of the terrorist threat; to raise awareness of the various strands of work that make up our counter-terrorist strategy; to explain publicly the United Kingdom's system of threat and response and levels; and to undertake to make the United Kingdom national threat level public from 1 August. I believe that the publication of these documents will be a significant further step in the existing dialogue between all of us on some of the very complex and difficult issues that the threat from international terrorism represents. That threat is to all of us and will be met, and eventually overcome, only by united action by all of us. I commend the documents to the House.

David Davis: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I start by joining the Home Secretary in his condolences to those who suffered in the 7 July bombings and his support for all those who bravely defended us all before, during and after those terrible events? I also thank him for his courtesy in giving the Opposition advance sight of his statement.
	I welcome the intention, which I think is the main thrust of his statement, to institute a public threat level warning system. We and others have been calling for that for some years, and the proposal was supported by the Intelligence and Security Committee two months ago. The idea is eminently sensible and the system will increase both public confidence and public vigilance. However, it will require the public to know what to do in each alert state, so what do the Government intend to do to educate the public about their response to the published alert states? Will the Home Secretary give the House some indication of how the practicalities will work? Will the public be asked to be alert for specific matters, as was common in Northern Ireland, or does he envisage that there will simply be an exhortation to heightened awareness?
	The system will, of course, only be as good as the intelligence that underpins it. The embarrassment of last year when the Government's alert status was reduced shortly before the 7 July attack demonstrated that very clearly. This is not an argument against having a transparent system, but an argumentfor reinforcing our counter-terrorist intelligence operations.
	That brings us to the general counter-terrorism strategy: the so-called Project Contest. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is publishing the details of Project Contest, to which we will give careful consideration and respond in due course. However, this is not just about strategies on a piece of paper. It is first and foremost about delivery on the streets of our cities, whether that is preventing the alienation and radicalisation of young men, as the Home Secretary has said, or interdicting, catching and convicting terrorists before they act.
	In autumn last year, the Prime Minister's delivery unit reviewed Project Contest. Remember, this was after 7 July, and the Prime Minister's own delivery unit was reviewing the Prime Minister's own policies. The unit's comments were scathing. It said that key policies designed to prevent attacks were "immature and disjointed", and that other policies were unrelated to the
	"real world and show no signs of making progress".
	It said that the policy was mired in confusion, with
	"little effective coordination and no clear leadership",
	and that there was
	"little confidence in the ability of the security apparatus to tackle the problem and it is very difficult to demonstrate that progress has been made".
	The unit quoted from a series of interviews with a number of Whitehall officials, who said:
	"Activity is not connected or coherent."
	They asked, "Who's in charge?", and said:
	"We measure meetings and reports, not real world impact."
	The conclusion of the 11-page delivery unit review states:
	"The strategy is immature. Forward planning is disjointed or has yet to occur. Accountability for delivery is weak. Real world impact is seldom measured."
	The Home Secretary has controversially described his own Department as "unfit for purpose". Is he confident that that Department is capable of correcting the serious problems highlighted by the Prime Minister's own delivery unit? Is it not the case that the necessary grip on the overall counter-terrorist effort will be taken only if there is a single Minister of Cabinet rank dedicated solely to dealing with the threat? Would we not be much more certain that our counter-terrorist strategy was both well designed and properly implemented if we had the benefit of an independent inquiry into the failure of that strategy that permitted the terrible events of July last year?

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he started by referring to the consensus around the publication of the report—but I regret the way in which he ended. I think that he referred to the "failure" of our systems with reference to 7/7. We should not underestimate just what protection this country has gained from our security services. Four times in the past year alone we have prevented a terrorist threat through the acumen, bravery and commitment of our services in this country. The old adage that we, and they, have to win every time, but the terrorists have to win and get through only once, is true. We should be a little quicker to understand and support our security services and a little slower to condemn them, implicitly or otherwise.
	May I refer to some of the other matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised? He asked whether we were urging the public to take specific or general action. We have given some broad headlines on page 33, under the heading, "What can the public do to help?", which explain what people can do both in their own communities and in response to threat levels. That includes:
	"identifying and reporting unusual or suspicious"
	circumstances. An anti-terrorist hotline, on 0800 789321, has been available for some time to anyone who wishes to draw to our attention anything that they think is noteworthy. Obviously, when people are travelling abroad, they could keep in touch with the Foreign Office. People can also help by
	"working in their own community",
	and so on. So, in a general sense, there are things that the public can do, but as I said earlier, whatever the threat level, I hope that people will be vigilant at all times. It is only by the united action of the united peoples of the United Kingdom that we will eventually counter this threat.
	As for specific threats, the position has been made clear by successive Home Secretaries, and by the Prime Minister. If there is a specific threat against a specific target, we will of course warn people, but as everyone in the House will know, we have to be wary about acting on general information and issuing warnings when they are not justified by the evidence. I merely point out that before 7/7, when the Government, under previous Home Secretaries, pointed out that there was a threat—on the advice of our intelligence services, and having taken into account all the considerations—Opposition Members accused us of crying wolf. It is difficult to judge between being over-cautious and being over-dramatic in alerting the public. We always face that problem.
	As for the self-critical analysis of our strategy, it is true that last October, barely two years after we set up the strategy, the Prime Minister commissioned—as he ought to have done—an analysis and a self-critical examination of the operations of our intelligence services, particularly the Contest strategy, as one would expect. We take the lessons of that analysis very seriously, and we are doing everything possible to make sure that we improve our performance at every opportunity.
	We have put in many more resources, and about£2 billion is going into general counter-terrorism and resilience work. We are spending four times as much on special branch and policing counter-terrorism activities as we did a few years ago. The resources are going in and lessons are being learned, and tomorrow there will be a debate in which such points can be discussed in far greater detail.

Nicholas Clegg: I join other hon. Members in passing on condolences on behalf of my party to everyone who suffered or was bereaved by the attacks on 7 July last year. I, too, thank the Home Secretary for the advance notice of his statement.
	I welcome what the Home Secretary said about the new system of threat and response levels, and I look forward to examining the document in more detail. Can he provide me with one small point of clarification? Does the new system of response levels replace the old system of alert state levels, which was used in key public buildings such as the Palace of Westminster? He will remember that the Intelligence and Security Committee called for greater simplicity in the terminology that is used, and it is important to include greater clarity in the new system that the Home Secretary announced today.
	The Home Secretary spoke eloquently of the need to work "with all communities to tackle the social factors underlying radicalisation, to block the ways radicalisation takes place, and to counter the radicals' arguments." Does he agree with the comments made last week by his hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) that the Government's follow-up to the excellent work by the seven working groups under the aegis of the "Preventing Extremism Together" initiative has been somewhat weak? Of the 64 recommendations, I think that only a small handful have been implemented.
	I noted the right hon. Gentleman's comments onthe High Court judgment on 28 June on a number of control orders and the Government's intentionto appeal. Notwithstanding that appeal, could he comment on the public remarks made by the independent reviewer of the anti-terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that the control orders could easily be amended in detail and in substance to bring them into line with the High Court judgment without abrogating any of our obligations under the European convention on human rights?
	Finally, I note that the Home Secretary refers, rightly, to the need to strengthen the UK's border security and tracking systems. Could he tell the House how far advanced the plans are to implement an e-border—electronic border—system, and whether he is warming at all to the argument made by a number of us for some time that there is an overwhelming need for a single integrated border police, if we are to take all the measures necessary to tackle the ongoing terrorist threat?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I shall answer them all as quickly as possible.
	Yes, the response levels that I announced today are a replacement for the alert levels to which he referred. On the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) about the progress of Preventing Extremism Together, I listened carefully to what was said, and I think it is important that we undertake some self-criticism. We always want to push to do more. I do not agree with many of the comments that my hon. Friend made on this occasion, although I agree on the necessity to do a lot more.
	Nine towns and cities with large Muslim populations were visited, for instance, by Home Office Ministers. Seven community-led working groups were set up under the banner of Preventing Extremism Together. Out of the 64 recommendations, 27 were for the Government to lead on. We have agreed action on all 27. Three have already been completed. I can give the hon. Gentleman details on those, if he wishes. One of them is youth matters, with the Department for Education and Skills and the Green Paper. One is extending opportunities legislation to cover discrimination on the grounds of faith, and expansion of the Muslim ethnic achievement project.
	Work on 17 of the recommendations is in progress. Three are still under consideration. Two have not been taken forward. From memory, one of those is powers to close places of worship. I cannot offhand remember the other one, but I can write to the hon. Gentleman about it. The three principal recommendations in which the Government were involved—the scholars roadshow, the Muslim forums against extremism, and the mosque and imams national advisory board—have been completed. So a great deal of work has already been done, but I am the first to admit that we have a lot more to do.
	If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall not go any further on the question of control orders because there is an appeal outstanding. It would be wrong at this time to comment on the learned Lord Carlile's views.
	On immigration and nationality, the hon. Gentleman may know that I promised when I took over as Secretary of State at the Home Office that those areas where I perceived inadequacies—that was not the whole of the Home Office; I was misrepresentedearlier, but I did discern and identify publicly areas where there were serious inadequacies in my view—I would come back within 100 days and put forwarda programme for overhauling the Home Office, reforming the immigration and nationality directorate and rebalancing the criminal justice system. There are a few days left, but I promise the hon. Gentleman that before he goes off, I will bring forward proposals onall three.

Derek Conway: The Home Secretary will understand that those with London constituencies with thousands of constituents travelling into the centre every day share a particular concern about what he tells the House today. But on the specific points that he made about his five-point threat level, he explained that news of that would be available on the Security Service and Home Office websites. However, realistically, after a while, how many people will check that before they set off for work in the morning? Is the right hon. Gentleman having discussions with some of the public transport operators about other ways in which the threat levels can be advertised, particularly to commuters into central London, so that people do not have to search for specialist sites to find out how at risk they might be just going to work?

John Reid: Yes, I am willing to do that. If the hon. Gentleman has ideas, I will be happy to receive those and I will consider them carefully. We have made an assumption that when the threat level, if it is made public, moves in any significant direction, it is likely to be followed by the media, but, of course, there are many other ways in which it could be made available, and we will always look to them.
	Let me take the opportunity to correct one point. I said in response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) that one of the matters that we had not proceeded with was the proposal to close places of worship, but was one of the considerations in the Prime Minister's 12-point plan, rather than one in the Preventing Extremism Together programme.

Roger Gale: Interdiction and, in particular, the prevention of errors in interdiction, are dependent on the rapid and accurate transmission of information. Sadly, it is still the case that the emergency services cannot fully and properly communicate with each other, particularly on the highly vulnerable London underground system. On a wholly practical level, when will the Home Secretary secure the investment that will make the Airwave system work underground?

John Reid: Of course we shall try to do that. Normally, when we make such allocations in our budget at UK level, Scotland receives a proportionate amount—indeed, more than proportionate, depending on how it is calculated—to meet the needs of a thirdof the UK's landmass, though only 8 per cent. ofthe population. I would not want anybody to underestimate the amount of extra money that has gone into policing. As I said, approximately four times as much money is going into policing, through special branch and so on, and about £2 billion is going towards counter-terrorism and resilience.
	The resources for MI5 are commensurate with the extent to which we can expand. There are limitations because we have to train people, who must be skilled in, for example, different languages and backgrounds now that we face a different threat.

John Reid: I know that the hon. Gentleman prides himself on the accuracy of his words. Let me therefore correct a factual inaccuracy. I did not say that the Home Office was "not fit for purpose", but that elements—areas—inside it were not. I said that after commending the Home Office for transforming the speed of treatment of asylum cases and—previously and subsequently—for transforming the UK Passport Service, which was the most disastrous aspect of Government in 1999. It has been transformed, with a consumer satisfaction rating that is higher than that for Tesco. I know that the hon. Gentleman would want to begin his question on a correct factual basis.
	The hon. Gentleman's second point was about tackling misrepresentations, misinterpretations or any administrative or other implications of the Human Rights Act to try to rebalance matters. Yes, that will be part of the third review, which I mentioned. Proposals on all aspects of rebalancing the criminal justice system will be introduced before the end of the parliamentary term.

Jane Kennedy: Will my right hon. Friend give the strongest possible support and encouragement to those law enforcement agencies engaged in intercepting the financing of terrorist acts? Does he believe that criminal activity is a source of funding for such activity? If that is the case, will he encourage the law enforcement agencies to expose such links, so that those young people to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) referred earlier, who might otherwisebe attracted to join in such activities for misguided religious or other reasons, can see the true nature of the organisations to which they are attracted?

John Reid: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Given her experience as a Security Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, she will probably know as well as anyone in the House how what is sometimes portrayed—and sometimes, in the eyes of its adherents, even begun—as a noble cause can degenerateinto money-manufacturing criminality for gangster organisations. That is the true nature of all extremist terrorism, when it goes unimpaired and unaddressed. Part of our dialogue with young people therefore involves discussing why they believe that they ought to become sympathetic towards such processes, and to engage with them by explaining not only the underlying political reasons that they believe drive them in that direction but the terrible consequences involved, including the corrupt criminal activities that are often related to such terrorist practices.

John Reid: It was when I left Northern Ireland, because that is the direction in which I pointed it, and I think that that is still the case. In fact, I will say to the hon. Gentleman that that is the direction, but I will I write to him to correct myself if it is not. However, I think that it is.

Jim Devine: Is it my right hon. Friend's opinion, based on his knowledge, are we safer today than we were on 7 July last year?

John Reid: In terms of the general threat level, we are at the same level that we have been since after July. I would like to say that I believe that there is a period of guaranteed safety, but there is no such thing. However, I can give my hon. Friend a guarantee that those who are working to protect this country from the threat of terrorism will give 100 per cent. dedication, 100 per cent. commitment and, I hope, 100 per cent. professionalism. They cannot give us 100 per cent. certainty, but everything possible is being done to ensure that, even with a severe level of threat, the terrorists do not get through.

Des Browne: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about UK deployments to Afghanistan. On Thursday, I spoke about Afghanistan during the defence debate. Today, I reiterate the enormous debt that we owe to the British soldiers who have given their lives and who have been injured while serving there. I also salute the bravery of all of our forces who are working to bring about lasting change in Afghanistan.
	On Thursday, I also said that we had received requests for additional forces in Helmand and that I would announce our response as soon as possible. I will do that today; but first, I want to place that response and indeed the whole of our deployment to Helmand and to Afghanistan as a whole in its proper context.
	On 11 September 2001, a devastating terrorist attack was launched against the west from within Afghanistan's borders. That happened, at least in part, because we abandoned Afghanistan to become a failed state after the Soviet occupation, and that is why it remains overwhelmingly in our national interest to ensure that Afghanistan does not revert to a haven for terrorists. It is also in the interests of the Afghan people, the vast majority of whom have no sympathy for terrorism or violent extremism. There are many malign influences holding back the Afghans and we need to fight them, but we should be under no illusion about what is required to succeed.
	Only by rebuilding Afghanistan, by strengthening its Government, its security forces and its legal system and by tackling its desperate poverty will we be able to help Afghanistan to make real and lasting progress. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we should help. The UN agrees. NATO agrees. Thirty-six countries are providing troops to seal their agreement. We all agree, and everything that we do and say should reflect that consensus.
	It is also important to recognise where our efforts in Helmand stand in relation to the strategy for Afghanistan as a whole. NATO has been in charge of that mission for three years. It has helped to generate the confidence for millions of refugees to return, and improved access to better medicine and education. It has followed a clear plan to expand security and reconstruction from the north to the west, and now to the more challenging south. We have been engaged in that process throughout, having until recently provided a provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif in the north. The south is more challenging, but that was always well understood, which is why NATO sought a firm platform of progress in the north and west first.
	Let me turn specifically to Helmand. We began deploying to Helmand in February, building up to full operating capability on 1 July. It has been said that we have been over-optimistic about that deployment, that we told the House that it would not be difficult and that we sent the wrong force. None of that is true. We said from the start that it was going to be a challenging mission. My predecessor's statement to the House on 26 January included a sober assessment of the threat. The force package, which was designed by the military and endorsed by the chiefs of staff, reflected that. It contained attack helicopters, artillery and armoured vehicles. We deployed tough, capable units, with robust rules of engagement, because we expected violent resistance.
	We knew that the Taliban, the drug lords and certain tribal elements would resist any attempt to bring security to the people of Helmand. We knew that the kind of people who behead teachers, burn schools, smuggle drugs and assassinate Government officials were not likely to stand by and allow progress to happen. Yes, we have taken casualties, but we have over-matched the opposing forces every single time that we have faced them. They have tried to block our deployment, and failed. They will continue to try to disrupt our mission, and they will continue to fail.
	Let me turn now to that mission. Some say that it is confused and that it is spurious to say that it is about reconstruction, when the reality for soldiers has been fighting. We always knew that there was a probability of violent resistance. That is why we sent soldiers to do the task, but that does not change our overriding purpose, which is to rebuild. We have been accused of naivety by drawing a distinction between the ISAF—international security assistance force—mission to spread security and the US-led mission focused on counter-terrorism. But that distinction is not naive at all. In both cases, soldiers will have to fight, but the nature of the ISAF mission reflects the fundamental fact that we will not reach a lasting peace by force alone; we will reach it when Afghanistan has changed and when the Government have been able to deliver such security, development and prosperity that the ordinary Afghans will no longer tolerate terrorists and criminals in their midst. That is why rebuilding is our mission. Our forces on the ground understand that, and the Afghans understand it. In that sense, the mission is simple, but its delivery is complex. That complexity arises from the situation. Three decades of conflict have stripped the south of all signs of governance and robbed many Afghans of hope. And in that uncontrolled space, violence, criminality, narcotics and extremism have flourished. We have confronted those threats and learned much about them since we deployed. As with any deployment, those experiences have allowed us to review our forces and approach. That is what we have been doing in recent weeks.
	Let me now explain why we need to adjust and strengthen our force structure in Helmand. The original intent was to tackle the challenges incrementally, spreading security and reconstruction from the centre of Helmand out. But the commanders on the ground grasped an early opportunity. They saw the chance to reinforce the position of the local governor and the Afghan army and police by going into northern Helmand and challenging the impunity of the Taliban there. In doing that, we moved faster towards achieving our ultimate objectives but also extended ourselves.
	We must respond to that development. But it is our actions—our decisions and our determination to grasp the challenge—that have brought about the development, and not, as some suggest, a failure to anticipate a violent response to our arrival. Yes, the violence has increased, but that was inevitable. We are challenging the power of the Taliban and other enemies of the Afghan Government, and they are reacting. But despite their efforts, we are spreading security.
	Our commanders have asked for additional forces to secure the early advances in the more remote communities in the north, while also enabling more progress to be made in central Helmand. Last Monday, I said that I was aware of ongoing work on such additional resources. I was also aware that, as part of that process, the chiefs of staff were going back to operational commanders and urging them to ensure that they had asked for everything that they needed. As I said in the House on Thursday, that iterative process produced a recommendation, which I received on that day. I and the chiefs of staff have considered the recommendation, and I have now endorsed it. I am grateful for the support and assistance of other Departments, especially the Treasury, in working through the necessary detail of this process as quickly as possible.
	Let me outline the key elements of the additional force. In order to accelerate the reconstruction effort in the current security environment, we will deploy 320 engineers from 28 Regiment Royal Engineers to start projects to improve local infrastructure. A company from 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines will provide force protection for them. Those deployments will take place in September. We will deploy an additional infantry company, drawn from 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, to provide more mobile forces, and two platoons from 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment to provide additional force protection. There will be small increases in headquarters staff. We will also boost our medical and logistical support to reflect the increase in troop numbers.
	We will step up our efforts to build the capacity of the Afghan national army. Its brave soldiers have fought side by side with us in recent months, and they are the key to our eventual exit strategy. We are therefore deploying additional staff to Helmand, and to the regional Army headquarters for the south. Great strides have already been made in that essential task and, following forthright discussions that I had with the Afghan Defence Minister, Wardak, additional Afghan troops have been sent to Helmand, and more will follow. There are also about 2,300 Afghan police and military in Helmand, building to about 4,800 in 2007.
	As with previous deployments, there will be a requirement to deploy reservists. Some 150 reservists are serving in the joint operational area, including members of the sponsored reserves. Some 450 call-out notices will be served on individual reservists in order to fill approximately 400 posts in theatre. One of the main reasons for the increase in reservist numbers is the planned deployment of 100 reservist personnel from 212 field hospital.
	Those enhancements—totalling some 870 personnel—will place additional demands on our air transport. We have already increased the flying hours available for attack and support helicopters, as requested by commanders, and today I can say that we will also make available more support helicopters and one additional Hercules C130. We also plan to deploy a radar installation, provided by No. 1 Air Control Centre, Royal Air Force.
	All those additional deployments will be made as soon as possible. I also want to cover the planned changes to the force structure resulting from the roulement in October, when the units currently comprising the Helmand taskforce, drawn predominantly—but not solely—from 16 Air Assault Brigade, will complete their tours. They will be replaced by units drawn principally from 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, including 42 and 45 Commando and other supporting elements, including 12 Signal Regiment. That roulement will also involve a change to the force structure, reflecting the differences in the two brigades' structures and equipment, including the requirement to support the commandos' Viking armoured vehicles. That represents approximately 125 additional personnel. The House will also be aware that last month, I announced the deployment of 130 personnel from 34 Squadron Royal Air Force to increase force protection at Kandahar airfield.
	This is a complex picture. Some troops will be going immediately and others in October; some will constitute an enduring addition, and others are being deployed on a surge basis. But I can tell the House that as a result of today's announcement, the steady-state size of the Helmand taskforce will increase between now and October from some 3,600 personnel to approximately 4,500.
	I am aware that our armed forces are heavily committed. As I said in the personnel debate, about18 per cent. of the Army is currently deployed on operations. That is challenging, but sustainable. Taking into account deployments in Iraq and the planned increase in personnel to Afghanistan, most of our deployable units will operate outside harmony guidelines. I do not accept that lightly, but I do believe that it is necessary, and judging by comments made in this House in recent months, so do the majority of Members. We will do all that we can to minimise the impact, and we will continue to seek further contributions from our NATO partners in order to relieve the pressure in some of those areas.
	Some commentators have suggested that insufficient infantry soldiers are deployed in comparison with the force's overall size. Let me be clear that the delivery of this mission is not borne by the infantry alone, and it does a disservice to a great many brave men and women to suggest otherwise. Indeed, of the six deaths in Afghanistan since the deployment, half have been from other arms. The infantry do have a challenging task, but so do all our forces in Afghanistan. Air power, artillery, light armour and others are involved in combat. However, the work done by the provincial reconstruction team, the training teams, and those who enable others to operate is every bit as essential to eventual success. Some more infantry are indeed deploying, but the fundamental balance of combat forces to others carrying out vital roles will not change. That is because the mission has not changed.
	Questions have been raised about NATO's capability and the intentions of the United States. NATO now has many more troops to reflect the greater challenge in the south. Rules of engagement have been made more robust. This morning, I spoke to Commander ISAF, General David Richards. He told me that in the south, effectively there were no caveats placed by nations on the use of their forces. Across Afghanistan, he was seeing a "new NATO" in which such caveats were becoming a thing of the past. He also said that he was confident that he had the forces to do the job, and that he had been encouraged to see nations like Germany and Spain considering making additional forces available.
	I believe that NATO is thoroughly fit for this role. It has been suggested that because it does not have forces in every province, it cannot succeed, but that misses the fundamental point that we are in a stage when NATO is expanding in Afghanistan. Months ago there were no NATO troops in the south at all, and few US troops. Soon, there will be nearly 9,000 in the south—part of a total of about 18,500. NATO is building on a success that many seem determined to ignore.
	As for the US, last week I spoke to GeneralJohn Abizaid, the US commander responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq, and he was absolutely clear about the US commitment to Afghanistan. They are not leaving this to NATO. They are part of NATO and likely to be the biggest force contributor in Afghanistan for some time to come. Accusations that they are abandoning NATO are misplaced.
	Lastly, I want to address counter-narcotics. I said that stability was the key to Afghanistan's future, and part of that stability must be delivered by the Afghan Government facing up to the evil of narcotics. President Karzai's personal commitment to this has been clear, and we must help. Again, the aim is simple, even if the implementation is difficult, and it is the same aim as for all other aspects of our task: to rebuild.
	We will only make a lasting impact on the narcotics industry by strengthening all aspects of Afghan life, so that the economy can function without drugs money and farmers have alternative livelihoods to turn to. That will take time, but the process must start now.
	Our soldiers are not narcotics police, and we do not ask them to be narcotics police. They are not waging a narcotics war; they will not destroy poppy fields; and they will not fight farmers for bags of opium. They are helping to create the conditions of security and development in which the narcotics industry will be weakened and eventually driven out by the Afghans themselves.
	I trust that I have made my position clear. My decisions on these matters have been shaped by what I saw and heard when visiting Afghanistan. Our people there are doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. They know why they are there, and they recognise the importance of their task. They have achieved a great deal already, and I intend to give them what they need to secure those achievements and to help the Afghans towards the stable future that they deserve.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman forhis unswerving support for our engagement in Afghanistan. It is very important that our troops, particularly those whom we have deployed in Afghanistan, know that there is support for whatthey have been sent to do. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—without going into the same amount of detail in setting out the geopolitical situation—that doing nothing is not an option. That, of course, underpins the Government's approach.
	When we began to deploy in February, continuing until 1 July when full operational capability was reached, we sent the force package for which the military commanders had asked. It was designed by the military commanders—in consultation with the chiefs of staff—to do the job. The purpose of our deploying further resources is to reflect the experience and learning gained from that deployment.
	I dealt specifically with the issue of narcotics because I felt that it, among other issues, required clarification—not that there was any doubt about the objectives that we set for our troops when we sent them to Afghanistan in the first place. Indeed, I remember reading carefully what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) when he announced the deployment on 26 January not only in the House, but elsewhere. He made it clear then that we were not sending our troops out to be narcotics police. However, given the commentary that there has been since then, I felt that it was important to make it clear again that there is no change in the position. That is not what our troops are doing in Afghanistan.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the continuing size of the American commitment to Afghanistan, particularly in the context of Operation Enduring Freedom. Before coming to the House, I spoke to the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, specifically about that matter. His response to me was that the Americans deploy their resources in Afghanistan and in other theatres in response to the circumstances, that forces increase and sometimes reduce and that that is what they will continue to do, but he gave me a reassurance, which I have reiterated to the House in the context of the statement, that the Americans' commitment to Afghanistan will be unwavering.
	The hon. Gentleman has referred on more than one occasion to the fact that we need to remove the distinction between ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom. That is one of the issues on which I disagree with him. My concern is that, if I were to accede to his request in relation to that and encourage NATO and others to do away with that distinction, exactly what I think will put our troops on the ground at risk in Afghanistan would happen. We would at one stroke do the job the Taliban are trying to do with their information operation in communities all over Helmand province, and that is to suggest to people in those villages that what we are telling them we are about there—reconstruction—is not the truth and that we have other objectives. If I were to accede to his request to remove the distinction between Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF even conceptually and argue for that more broadly with NATO, I would achieve that objective at one stroke.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about further helicopter support. I had to decide whether I would be able to give detailed information to the House today and, if not, whether to delay the statement, or whether to make the statement in the way in which I have because there is other work to be done in relation to helicopters. I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman, however, that the helicopter support that will be made available to support the package will be that which has been asked for by the commanders on the ground.
	On the issue of NGOs and reconstruction, it is clear to me, from my experience both in Afghanistan and from what was reported back to me from Afghanistan, that our longterm objectives there will be served by the success of reconstruction, but that we will not be able to achieve that reconstruction without security and we will not be able to build the security without reconstruction. We have deployed the significant resource of engineers in order that they will be able to enhance the reconstruction that we can do and the security that we can create in the communities through the deployment of our resources thus far.

Nick Harvey: May I reiterate our support for the engagement in Afghanistan and pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of our forces who are undertaking that dangerous work? It is essential that we build long-term stability in Afghanistan not only for the Afghan people but because, as others have said, lawless chaos provides sanctuary to militant extremists and that threatens everyone's security. I also stress our support for the deployment of additional troops announced today. Where they are able, the Government clearly must provide the commanders on the ground with the troops and equipment that they need.
	Can the Secretary of State tell us how much of what he has announced today is totally new and how much of it is an acceleration of plans that already existed? Is he confident that the additional deployment he has announced will be sufficient? Is the breaching of harmony guidelines and the dependence on reservists to which he has referred sustainable for the long term, as it is becoming increasingly clear that this will be a long-term job?
	Is he satisfied that all the helicopter, lift and air attack capability that is required has now been committed, and can he tell us where the men to do the proposed extra flying hours will come from? Will the additional commitment impair our ability to train more crews back home?
	The Secretary of State tells us that a sober assessment of the threat was made at the start of the mission, and I am sure that that is true, but the former Secretary of State for Defence described it as
	"a small but hugely significant step".—[ Official Report,26 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1533.]
	It remains hugely significant, but it looks somewhat less small than it did in January. Of course we have to respond to changing circumstances and a more challenging environment, but can the Secretary of State tell us whether the role and operational objectives of British troops have changed at all from that time?
	We have the lead responsibility for counter-narcotics, but there has been a record harvest in the south of the country, and there are grave questions about the feasibility of simultaneously achieving both security and counter-narcotics objectives. A concerted strategy is needed to provide alternative livelihoods for those who depend on narcotics. The Secretary of State said in his statement that that process must start: does he mean that there is as yet no strategy, or simply that the practical work on the ground must now start? Finally, with two weeks until the summer recess begins and given the fast changing environment, can he tell us what measures the Government have in mind to keep Parliament in the loop as changes are necessary over the summer recess?

Des Browne: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. I do not see that either my announcement today or the level of deployment of reservists that has been required would indicate that we will moveaway from that frequency of deployment. I takethis opportunity to pay tribute to the significant contributions made by reservists and to recognise that as a result of reforms in training and structure they are more suited to deployment than they were in the past. I also pay tribute to their employers, who support us well when we have to deploy their employees.

James Arbuthnot: The Secretary of State may have heard last week of my concern that the deployment to Afghanistan, which I fully support, is being conducted on something of a shoestring. Last week, when we visited, we met some fantastic men and women who are doing their excellent best with the resources they have, but we heard that deployment of the Harriers and its subsequent extension to March next year carried a condition imposed by the Treasury that it should be at no additional cost. Will the Secretary of State remove that condition and assure us that none of the deployments that he has announced today carriesthe same extraordinary condition?

Doug Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least two conditions must be met if the mission is to be successful? First, the mission must have the support of the Afghan people and, secondly, those in the international community who could contribute forces must accept that the mission is necessary and justified. If my right hon. Friend agrees, will he reinforce the point that if there is any confusion between what Enduring Freedom has done, and is doing, and the ISAF commitment, it could undermine both those aims? Does he agree that the United Nations needs to clarify the mission, given that it is about threeyears since it did so, and that many people in the international community and in this country have forgotten that there is a UN mandate?

Des Browne: I have not forgotten that there is a UN mandate. I spend a lot of my time reminding people that there is a UN mandate, which is supported by NATO and a significant number of countries—almost all the developed world—including countries whose presence is remarkable given their past history, such as the Scandinavian countries. Indeed, I understand that the Swedish troops are in Afghanistan with no caveats. From my dealings with our partners in NATO or others deployed in ISAF, I have no sense that there is anything other than the fullest commitment to the noble cause of seeking to rebuild Afghanistan, no matter how difficult that may be, for the very reasons that were articulated at some length by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). I have absolutely no doubt about that level of support.
	I agree that it would be a disservice to our forces to confuse what they are doing with Operation Enduring Freedom. None the less, that operation is necessary because terrorists are still at large in parts of Afghanistan, and it is right and appropriate that we should try to eliminate them.

Des Browne: Today, General Richards, the commander of ISAF, told me that he had the resources that he needed to do the job. He said—as all commanders do when I have this conversation with them—that if there were more resources that he could employ, he could always employ more resources, but I asked him whether he had sufficient resources to dothe job. I have been in conversation with him, the Secretary-General of NATO, and a significant number of our allies at Defence Minister level to insist that where it is possible for additional resources to come forward—where they are available—they should be deployed.
	In relation to the transfer of authority for phase three, which is due to take place at the end of this month, although there are some shortfalls against the ideal solution, General Richards told me this morning that he is pleased with recent developments in these areas and is confident that they will be filled, and he has been reassured by the efforts of NATO's senior commanders.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has the merit of being consistent in relation to these matters and I respect him for that, as he understands and knows. In this House, in a rhetorical way, he repeatedly makes clear the position that he has sustained. I am sure that he was saying exactly the same thing when ISAF was deployed in both north and west Afghanistan. He ought to look at the progress that has been madethere now.

Tony Lloyd: Those of us who support my right hon. Friend in what he has set out today nevertheless recognise that the point about the contributions made by other NATO allies is central and important. Is he aware that a debate in taking place in the German Parliament, as it is in other allies, about where we should go with this? What can he do to ensure that the message that failure in Afghanistan is unthinkable is communicated through him and his colleagues in other allies' Governments?

Des Browne: I can reassure my hon. Friend that no one who has had a conversation with me about Afghanistan has not been told exactly what the hon. Member for Woodspring repeats every time that he comes to the Dispatch Box: failure is unthinkable for a number of reasons, not least of which is the future of NATO. Failure in Afghanistan would be significant for NATO's future as an organisation that can deliver on its objectives and generate the amount of force necessary to protect those whom it was designed to protect in this very much changed and difficult world in which we live. I repeat that message consistently. My understanding from the conversations that I had today before coming to the House is that whatever the debate that is happening in Germany's Parliament—it is entirely appropriate that that debate should take place—the Germans are in fact considering increasing their deployment in Afghanistan.

Nicholas Soames: I very much welcome the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but does he not agree thatwhat is especially shameful about the NATO allies' response to the mission is the fact that given thatthe commander, General Richards, is a NATO commander—Commander Allied Rapid Reaction Corps—the operation is a NATO operation, so not to support it wholeheartedly is to show that NATO's transformation is inadequate and incomplete? The allies now need to take grown-up, real decisions, especially about the deployment of airlift, which they have in abundance, and make some use of that.

Des Browne: I have no difficulty at all in joining my hon. Friend in extending congratulations. I gladly take any opportunity that I get, whether at the Dispatch Box or otherwise, to congratulate our forces on the work that they do not only in Afghanistan, but in other theatres. I will add to the list of those who should be congratulated on the progress that has been made in Helmand, which he witnessed, not only in Lashkar Gah, but beyond, of which today's statement was a function. We should also extend congratulations to the Afghan national forces, who are fighting along with our forces very bravely. When we consider the scale of the challenge that we face and the commitment that we need to support the Afghans, we should consistently remind ourselves that those brave people have lost2 million of their own citizens fighting for the freedom to get themselves to the stage at which they are. That is why the international community must stay with them.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people outside the House will regard his statement today as an exampleof mission creep, and think that we are startingan unending deployment of British troops in Afghanistan? Can he give us an idea of the maximum number that he is prepared to deploy, and for how long?

Des Browne: Without hesitation I can tell my hon. Friend that I will not answer that question specifically. He may find that a cause for criticism, and I will just have to live with that. It is because this is not mission creep that we have to identify additional resources. We have to deploy those resources to achieve the mission and the objective that we set; as we deployed, we identified prospects for success that now have to be reinforced. I just ask my hon. Friend, who, I suspect, is a consistent critic of any deployment of ours in Afghanistan at all: what is the alternative for the people of Afghanistan and the developed world if we, who are capable of doing so, do not accept the challenge of stopping that country from once again becoming a training ground for terrorists?

Paul Flynn: Is not one of the main reasons why we have lost more British lives in the past four weeks than in the previous five years that we are associated with the American operation Enduring Stupidity, which seeks to bomb the Afghans into democracy and to destroy their livelihoods? The country has been anarchic and ungovernable by outside forces for centuries. Is not the alternative that the Secretary of State seeks for us to detach ourselves from that operation and to devise our own practical alternative, which is to transfer to the Afghan farmers the licence for using their poppies in order to manufacture morphine? Is he not concerned that the Taliban are not on their own, as he says? We are also fighting against those who are defending their livelihoods, some who are Tajiks fighting against the Pashtuns, and many others who are warlords and who are every bit as wicked under Karzai as they were in previous years.

Des Browne: I am tempted to say that when my hon. Friend reads in  Hansard the question that he has just asked, he will see that in the second part of his question he has contradicted the assumption that he made inthe first part, about the motivation of the peoplewho are attacking our troops. First, Afghanistan isa democracy. It has a democratically elected Government, President Karzai is a democratically elected president, and it has a democratically elected Parliament. It may not be what my hon. Friend recognises as democracy, but it is significantly better than the Afghan people have ever had in their lifetime. It is that very democracy which we are in Afghanistan to protect. Secondly, it is entirely inappropriate to attribute blame to those who are seeking to support that democracy and to give the Afghan people the opportunity to throw off the tyranny of those whom my hon. Friend accurately describes as having brutalised them over three decades. They were doing it long before the Americans, the British or ISAF ever went anywhere near Afghanistan, and to suggest that that is the motivation for the criminality and their crude violence now is totally to misunderstand what is going on in Afghanistan.

Brian Jenkins: I am glad my right hon. Friend mentioned the fact that many of the Taliban fighters are paid by the Taliban. Although I recognise that we do not want British troops burning poppy fields, who will be responsible for stopping the flow of drugs out of Afghanistan, 60 per cent. across the Iranian border, and the money into the Talibanwar chest?

Des Browne: The responsibility for counter-narcotics lies principally with the Afghan Government, of course with support from, among others, ourselves, who are the lead partner nation for the Afghans in counter-narcotics. The strategy has several strands, and it is only when all those strands come together that wewill see a counter-narcotics strategy that allows Afghanistan to move away from an economy which is over-dependent on narcotics and consequently can be exploited in the way that it has been, and that we will be able to interdict, to the extent that we can, the flow of narcotics on to the streets of our country.

Adam Holloway: The Minister is aware that we will not win this unless we get the reconstruction right. Commanders on the ground say that only a very small amount of reconstruction has been delivered to the people of Helmand. Given the need to maintain the good will of ordinary villagers, is it not time massively to upscale thebudgets and the delivery of reconstruction, to drop DFID's somewhat politically correct idea that all reconstruction, or most of it, should go through the Afghan Government in Kabul and filter its way down to Helmand, and to start to brand reconstruction as British, thereby safeguarding our troops in Helmand?

Des Browne: I know that the hon. Gentleman as a member of the Select Committee has had the opportunity to consider these matters in some detail, and he identifies a very important correlation between reconstruction and security. It is not possible to plan for reconstruction without security, and it is not possible to sustain security without reconstruction. That is why, at the beginning of the deployment part of the statement, I announced to the House the significant increase in military engineers who will improve the prospects of our being able to do reconstructionin these communities immediately behind the introduction of security to them, recognising that it is difficult to ask those who are associated with non-governmental organisations and do not have military capability to take on the level of risk that that set of circumstances generates.
	It is not a shortage of funding for reconstruction that is the challenge, it is the ability to be able to deliver it and configure it in a way that is consistent with the precarious level of security in which we may have to start to deliver it. That is why a substantial part of this deployment is designed to achieve just that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that that is usual, but it is a matter of discretion. Both the occupant of the Chair, and the Speaker's secretary, who assists the occupant of the Chair, do their very best to make sure that the names of everyone who wishes to speak are noted down as quickly as possible.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Agreement (Cm 6872) dated 30th June 2006, between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which was laid before this House on 3rd July 2006.
	As the House well knows, the BBC is founded on its royal charter. The current charter expires in December this year, to be replaced by a new charter that will run until the end of 2016. I shall set out how we intend to achieve three objectives in relation to the BBC: first, sustaining a strong BBC that is independent of Government and responsive to the needs of licence fee payers; secondly, ensuring that the BBC is able to adapt to the rapidly changing media environment; and thirdly, within that context, reassuring the BBC's competitors that the BBC will avoid undue impact on what is a thriving and creative marketplace.
	Last year, we said in our manifesto:
	"We support a strong, independent and world-class BBC with clearly defined public purposes at the heart of a healthy public broadcasting system".
	We know that the public agree with that commitment because we have consulted them on it, as we have consulted them on the whole charter review process—the first time that that has been done so extensively by any Government. There is a view, which we have explored at some length, that as the amount of choice available to consumers continues to explode, the need for a BBC diminishes, and the market and new technology alone will provide. That view is comprehensively rejected by the public and by the Government. At first glance, that might seem surprising. After all, we have moved in just a few years from a four-channel nation to a 500-channel nation. The mass-market water cooler moments of the past, with audiences of 30 million for a single programme, are being replaced by niche TV. In 1995, 225 programmes had audiences of 15 million or more; in 2004, only 10 did. More money is now spent on multi-channel TV subscriptions than on paying the licence fee.

Tessa Jowell: The BBC, and the BBC alone, has the important responsibility of deciding what to pay its staff and its performers.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham(Mr. Redwood) drew an analogy with the polltax, about which he knows a great deal. Theprofound distinction between Labour Membersand Conservative Members is our commitment to universal, free-to-view broadcasting funded by the licence fee. That is the basis of the settlement that I am setting out to the House.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) has also raised this matter, and it is now the subject of a police inquiry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore understand if I make no further commenton it.
	The BBC is valued for many reasons. It is internationally respected as a news, entertainment and information organisation that tries to get it right, that tries to tell the truth, and that will avoid exaggeration, distortion or misrepresentation. For that reason, as it takes its place among an increasingly wide range of news and current affairs providers, its commitment to accuracy and impartiality is of enormous importance to the licence fee payer.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Wherever bias is suspected on any issue in the BBC, it should be properly and openly investigated. The conclusions should then be published and the BBC should act accordingly. The new system of governance to which the BBC will be subject will, for the first time, give the licence fee payer that authority—an authority that has, in the Government's view, been denied for far too long.
	In a rapidly changing media environment, the BBC's Reithian values provide an enduring anchor. We turn to the BBC for high quality, home-produced music, drama and entertainment, and we know that it takes fun seriously. Without the ability to entertain, the BBC would not have the ability to inform and educate.
	The BBC's role has historically been about more than simply providing programmes. Since the introduction of radio in the 1920s, it has led the way with technological developments, ensuring that new opportunities are made available to the widest possible audience. As a result, it has played a major role in creating the world-class broadcasting and technology market that now exists in this country. The new charter will ensure that this role is continued for the next10 years. In the past few years, we have seen again how the BBC's adoption of new technology can drive the market for the benefit of consumers and for the wider industry.
	The example par excellence of that is digital switchover. Digital terrestrial television and digital radio have both developed rapidly because of the BBC's commitment and investment. Commercial companies have also innovated and invested, but it is the BBC that has the reach and the duty to ensure that new technology does not lead to a new divide. The BBC's enormous contribution to digital take-up through Freeview has led to increased competition, choice for the viewer and innovation. The BBC also has the trust of people, who are more prepared to get interested in new technologies if they know that the BBC is their guide.

Tessa Jowell: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It is an extraordinarily important part of the BBC's remit, as is encouraging more people to buy digital radios in order to benefit from the wide range of BBC and other digital radio services.
	We are already at a point where more than 72 per cent. of households are receiving digital TV, but we recognise the risk of a minority, particularly of older people, being left behind. The market has a huge role to play, but in the end it is the BBC that will bring everyone into the digital future. The partnership between the BBC as the major public broadcaster and the commercial sector is what makes the broadcasting landscape in this country unique. I believe, as does the vast majority of public and industry analysts, that that balance has served us well and can continue to do so; but it can do so only if it is examined and adjusted constantly to reflect changes in technology and consumer demand. Because the BBC must always be strong enough to reach every part of the community and every part of the country, it must be the benchmark of quality in every medium.
	It must not, however, be over-mighty. It must not crowd out competitors and must not simply reach for the cheque book to beat the opposition. That is the tightrope that the BBC must walk. That is the price that it pays for public subsidy. Will it sometimes lose its footing; will the balance always be perfect? Probably not, but the vigorous health of the commercial sector, the BBC and the new media sector in combination is proof that over the years we have got the balance about right. The BBC keeps the commercial sector's feet to the fire; the commercial sector keeps the BBC honest: that is the best kind of creative tension, and wehave institutionalised it in the new governance arrangements.
	In making the new arrangements, we are giving the BBC stronger, clearer objectives, obligations to be distinctive and innovative, and a requirement to consider market impact before developing new services. The existing board of governors will be replaced by a trust to hold the BBC to account. It will be closer to the public and further from the executive than the existing system, and, for the first time, there will be a separate, formally constituted executive board— [Interruption.]

Tessa Jowell: BBC services will have clear service licences, thereby helping to safeguard the health of the wider market. They will define how they contribute to achieving the BBC's objectives and the trust will hold the BBC executive to account to make sure that those licence conditions are met. The new BBC Trust must weigh up the value to the public of new services and balance them against the impact on the market. We will shortly publish the willingness-to-pay research as part of the consultation on the level of the licence fee. That sort of contribution is a vital part of the trust defining itself as the licence fee payers' advocate. The market impact assessment will be provided by Ofcom and, for the first time, there will be vigorous public assessments of the value of each new development.
	Public value—the driving concept behind the new BBC charter—is about much more than simply asking people whether they like a particular idea or proposed new service. It is much more related to gainingan in-depth, sustained understanding of public preferences and how they change in response to the services provided with their money. That should be a continuing two-way process of mutual education between the public and the BBC about its public values and how BBC services will benefit the wider market.
	The principles of responding to the public, achieving greater efficiency and investing in Britain's digital future will also underlie the forthcoming licence fee settlement. We are in discussion with the National Audit Office about how we examine the BBC's future efficiency, as part of the licence fee settlement, so that we can get an established baseline against which to judge the BBC's future efficiency programme.

Tessa Jowell: All sides are keen to know what the settlement will contain, but this is a sum that is greater than its parts. The future of the complex ecology of the media industry depends on getting that right, and we will announce the outcome later this year and in good time for the new licence fee to be in place by April 2007.
	The BBC is more than just another broadcaster. By its very constitution, it exists to serve everyone in the United Kingdom, wherever they live, whatever their income and whatever their views. It is a place where the whole nation meets as equals. Its owners are the British people—the people who pay the licence fee. It must not be beholden to shareholders, ratings or Governments. Alongside the NHS, it is part of the fabric of our lives, unlike any other institution.
	The new charter and the agreement before the House today are the result of the widest consultation on the future of the BBC ever undertaken. I am therefore confident that our proposals embody the public's wish for the BBC to continue to serve the nation in the next 10 years, as it has done for the past 80, and I commend them to the House.

Hugo Swire: I beg to move, in line 3, at end add
	'but regrets that the proposed BBC Trust will not be sufficiently independent as a regulator for the BBC; believes that the National Audit Office should have full access to the BBC's accounts; is concerned that the announcement of the licence fee has been delayed without adequate explanation; further regrets the fact that the Charter Renewal process has been separated from the final licence fee decision; and further believes that the BBC's bid for an increase in the licence fee of 2.3 per cent. on top of the Retail Price Index is excessive.'.
	I welcome the debate today. I am grateful to the BBC for agreeing to publish its annual report early, and the House can now have a full debate on the charter and the state of the BBC. I am particularly pleased that the Secretary of State has been able to join us today. We are fortunate that the debate was not scheduled over the lunch hour. I am also grateful to the BBC for giving me the opportunity to see some of its recent technological advances: podcasting, on-demand viewing and mobile downloads show that the BBC is embracing the future, and I know that millions of viewers across the country will be looking forward to the day that the House can be seen on high-definition TV, although that creates nervousness among some Members on both sides of the House.
	The report reaffirms that we in this country are uniquely fortunate to have such a highly regarded public service broadcaster. We welcome the decision to renew the BCC's charter, but we have a duty to ensure that the BBC is fit for purpose. We cannot shy away from the uncomfortable trends revealed in the BBC's annual report. Audience share is down. Audience reach is down. Ratings among younger viewers are down. Pension liabilities are up. Executive pay is up. Presenters' salaries are up.
	We must all be concerned at the decline in audience figures. The future of broadcasting will see a revolution in viewing habits, as the Secretary of State has said, as we complete the move from a five-channel era to oneof almost limitless choice. Audiences will become increasingly fragmented. We will see a huge increase in specialised on-demand viewing. Broadcasting will increasingly be more about narrowcasting.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making some very telling points, unlike the Secretary of State, who quite wrongly conjures a vision of the people's BBC out of the air. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way to have a people's BBC is to give everyone a share in it in return for our licence fee, so that we could then settle its future and do something better with it?

Hugo Swire: That is a little bit too radical for me, but my right hon. Friend makes an extremely intriguing point, and I hope that he will agree with most of what I have to say this evening, even if I stop short of his suggestion.
	Like most major broadcasters, the BBC's audience share is already steadily declining, yet unlike many other broadcasters, which are dependent on falling advertising revenue, its income is steadily increasing. For that reason, the BBC must maintain broad public support if it is to continue to be funded in that unique way.
	I am pleased that measures outlined by the BBC show that it will continue to put the emphasis on quality programming. I am confident that it can look forward to a strong future in that respect, but it is our responsibility to ensure that the BBC is independent, well regulated and appropriately funded. That is where the charter renewal process fails.
	The new regulatory framework proposed in the charter is flawed. The new BBC Trust does not differ sufficiently from the old BBC board of governors—a system that we all agree was untenable. The new trust threatens to be insufficiently detached from BBC management to be a truly independent regulator—it will be made up of the same people, just based in a different building. The BBC will still effectively act as its own judge and jury, especially in the absence of any adequate appeals system against the trust's decisions.
	I still see no reason why Ofcom, which already has some regulatory powers over the BBC, could not be a truly impartial and rigorous regulator for the whole BBC. It is particularly important to have strong independent regulation, as the BBC continues to expand into new technologies and new media. There are instances of its breaching its requirement to provide services that are both distinctive and complementary to those already provided by the commercial sector.
	I welcome the window of creative competition, changes to the BBC's fair trading policy and Ofcom's increased role in conducting market impact assessments, but more should be done, which is why the charter represents a missed opportunity to establish once and for all a more settled relationship between the state-funded BBC and its commercial competitors. For example, Conservative Members have long believed that the BBC should have only a very narrow role in publishing books and magazines.
	Although I accept that UK plc gains from the BBC's involvement in technological advances, we cannot ignore the possibility that, given its almighty spending power and commercial weight, it will stifle competitors and make it untenable for others to be more profitable in newly emerging markets. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether she has heard as much concern as I have from other media organisations that the charter does do not enough to prevent predatory competition?
	Let me focus for a moment on the BBC's online dominance. The Secretary of State must be aware of the strong arguments against a single service licence for online content. Can she give an undertaking today that the BBC will be subjected to a transparent approval process for new online services? What guarantees are there to ensure that it will not unfairly crowd out its competitors?
	I mentioned earlier the importance of appropriate funding for the BBC if it is to maintain full public confidence over the next 10 years—something that, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides of the House would like. We now know that it has submitted a bid for an eye-wateringly large increase based on the retail prices index plus 2.3 per cent., under which the licence fee would go up from about £130 to £180 by 2013. At that rate a £200 licence fee is not much further away. Does the Secretary of State not realise that such a high licence fee risks damaging the BBC's public support?
	The Secretary of State will have seen in the coverage of the BBC's annual report that one senior executiveis reported to have accumulated a pension pot of£3.85 million. That comes at a time when the corporation is to close its final salary pension scheme to new employees and raise the retirement age to 65. Does the Secretary of State realise the danger of having, on the one hand, seemingly huge benefits for top executives, and on the other, a bid for unprecedented licence fee increases?
	The wider debate about executives' salaries is also important. At a time when the BBC is cutting staff and asking for more money from the licence fee payer, the public will be concerned by the news not only of the pay increases for senior executives, but of multi-million pound deals for presenters. There has already been an intervention on that point. Surely it is hard for the BBC to argue that that will not lead to super-inflation when, rather than
	"catching up with the market"
	in respect of pay, as has been suggested, it is increasingly the market leader. Indeed, the PKF report states that the
	"BBC's average cost per employee is towards the higher end of average earnings",
	and that
	"it is questionable that the BBC needs to pay higher rates than average".
	PKF also shows that between 2002 and 2004 the wage rates of Sky, ITV and the average top 100 radio and TV companies were lower than those of the BBC. The licence fee should not be a blank cheque to outbid and outprice everyone in the marketplace.
	The divorce in this debate between the licence fee and the charter has become increasingly unsustainable.

Philip Davies: I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The commercial broadcasters are concerned about the fall in advertising revenues and the looming triumph of the nanny state in banning the advertising on television of Maltesers and other such things. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another reason why an above-inflation increase in the licence fee would be completely unacceptable, in that it would lead to commercial broadcasters being crowded out?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend, as is customary, makes a good point. There are a number of reasons why we feel that there should not be an increase of RPI plus 2.3 per cent. in the licence fee—and the Secretary of State probably shares our view. My hon. Friends will no doubt want to articulate why they agree with their Front-Bench spokespeople that such an increase would be too much, and that the new figure would betoo high.
	The divorce between the two areas of the debate that I referred to is a flaw that the Secretary of State has built into the process. By delaying the announcement of the licence fee until the end of the year, we are further separating the two elements of the debate. I am pleased—I genuinely would like the Secretary of State to listen to this—that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport charter review website has at last woken up to the fact that the announcement has been delayed. The website manager cannot have been at the drinks party at which the Secretary of State announced that—and the Secretary of State, or her officials, clearly forgot to inform the new Minister in her team, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South(Mr. Woodward), about it at all.
	Today, we will be setting in stone what we want the BBC to do for the next 10 years, but we will not be saying how much we are prepared to pay for that. In the fast changing world of broadcasting, how can we say, "This is what we want," while not at the same time agreeing how much it is going to cost?
	According to reports, the Secretary of State has already agreed that the BBC's licence fee proposal is too high. That raises the following question: which, if any, of the things that the BBC is proposing to do does she think is unimportant? Ultra-local television? The move to Salford? High-definition television? Or does she, like many of us, have concerns about the figures that the BBC have used to come to the conclusion that RPI plus 2.3 per cent. is the magic number? It is ludicrous for us to be ordering from the menu without knowing whether we can afford to settle up when the bill arrives.
	The Secretary of State may be coy about revealing the reasons for the delay in the licence fee settlement—as the other Minister was when we debated the same subject a few weeks ago—but it seems that between them, the BBC and the Government have somehow got their figures wrong. Two reports, one commissioned by DCMS and the other by ITV, have pointed to anomalies in the BBC's bid. Both PKF and Indepen have undermined the BBC's submission to the Government; PKF considers that the BBC does not necessarily need the extra funds that it has requested. Also, it seems that the cost of the move to Salford has suddenly been reduced by £200 million. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that an overfunded BBC could lead to super-inflation in the industry? Will she today agree to make available the full current figures on which the level of the licence fee will be agreed?
	There is another reason why the licence fee bid is so high: the Government's digital switchover policy. We are now just two years away from the start of analogue switch-off, but we still have no idea about the costs of targeted help schemes, which the licence fee payer will have to bear. The director-general of the BBC thinks that they could cost on
	"the far side of a billion"
	pounds. Will the Secretary of State confirm today that she can provide the House and the BBC with a final figure for targeted help? If not, will she at least guarantee that we will know those figures before any licence fee settlement is announced?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I hope that the Secretary of State has listened to his concerns. There is also concern, as a result of the delay in the licence fee announcement, that Digital UK will have to order equipment without knowing whether the BBC can pay for it. All such matters need to be discussed in the round. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a similar point in the debate that we had a couple of weeks ago. I hope that Government Ministers listen to such special pleas.
	Such confusion over the BBC's licence fee bid shows how important it is for the National Audit Office to play a greater role in setting the fee. I have maintained throughout the renewal process that a Conservative Government would bring in the NAO to examine the BBC's figures. The case for that is overwhelming. The NAO could assure licence fee payers that they were getting value for money and could assure this House that the licence fee had been properly scrutinised. Also, given that there is no longer any distinction between a mandatory licence fee and taxation, I further believe that this House should have a full debate, and vote, on any future increase. But in this case we have, to borrow a phrase, taxation without representation. Why do the Government continue to resist repeated calls both from within this House and across the industry for there to be further scrutiny of the licence fee settlement?
	As I am mindful that others wish to contribute to this incredibly important debate, I have focused on only some of our concerns about the new charter. Other Members will want to discuss that in greater detail. We come to this debate as strong supporters of an independent and properly funded BBC, but also as champions of the licence fee payer and the commercial sector.

Denis MacShane: I would be persuaded by the hon. Gentleman if he had witnessed at close hand, as I have, the effective monopolisation and control of much of this country's regional media and broadcasting. In fact, I agree in part with his general point, in that the BBC is seeking to do too much. It is an amoeba that is spreading out and occupying far too much of our country's media space. I do not share in the rather adulatory remarks that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made about the BBC, perhaps because I spend some of my time in Europe. Myhon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West(Mr. Davidson), who is no longer in the Chamber, would advise the House that I spend perhaps too much of my time in Europe. I see other broadcasters on the continent that are every bit as good as, if not better than, the BBC, not least in the provision of news, current affairs and political discussion. It has been lamentably lacking in that regard in recent years.
	The BBC is a self-referring, self-regulating body and frankly, it is in self-denial. The new media world will not be dominated by any single organisation. I want the BBC to be a "British" broadcasting corporation, showing what it can do to provide news, entertainment and current affairs to every corner of this country. It does not have to become an American broadcasting corporation. I do not know why it runs mammoth offices in Washington and New York and is seeking to compete directly in the American market. Americans of all ilks at the top of that great nation refer to the BBC. Alan Greenspan told me that the first thing that he read was the BBC news summary on the internet, followed by the  Financial Times and then  The Economist. So, when Members in all parts of the House complain about American policy, they should remember that the British media are often influencing such people the most.
	My principal concern is the enormous pressure put on many of the poorest of my constituents by an unavoidable impost over which they have no say and no vote, and on which this House does not even have any right to comment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly compared the BBC to the NHS, but the latter is making serious efforts to find new sources of revenue, to introduce choice and to link up to private markets, so the comparison is not quite right. Even today, poor people in my constituency have immense difficulty in making ends meet and in finding £113 to give to a BBC whose programmes they rarely watch, whose radio they rarely listen to and whose many magazines and books they do not buy, despite the huge publicity for them. So serious questions have to be asked about whether it should not itself be finding sources of finance other than this deeply regressive licence fee.

Denis MacShane: That is a fair point. I remember that, when I worked in local radio, it was impossible to get anybody in BBC television to even mention the fact that local radio existed. Perhaps some of those imperial divisions have broken down.
	I am disappointed that the Government have been unable to find other mechanisms for bringing revenue into the BBC. I am not convinced—despite the many fine journalists to whom I pay tribute, especially those covering events in some of the most dangerous parts of the world—that the BBC is helping to shape a new journalism. Frankly, I find deplorable its project Phoenix, through which it wants to start a weekly political or current affairs magazine. Britain has the weakest weekly political press in Europe, and it is weaker than that in north America. I am talking not about the marvellous articles written in  The Spectator,  Tribune, the New Statesman, The Week and  The Economist, but about the circulation, reach and influence of the British weekly political press, which is far below that of its equivalents across the channel or across the Atlantic. It is quite deplorable that the BBC is even contemplating entering into that market.
	I also find it deplorable that the BBC's coverage of Parliament has been seriously downgraded under this Government. I am not suggesting that this is a case of cause and effect, but there was a time when one could listen to "Yesterday in Parliament". One cannot do so anymore without twiddling on to something called "long wave", which I cannot find on my digital radio. I am sure that it is there somewhere, but I cannot find it.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree with him that the BBC broadcasts too little coverage of Parliament nowadays, but is that not because the Executive have so much power over this Chamber that our debates are not as interesting as they used to be?

Denis MacShane: Well, they are certainly a lot more interesting since the hon. Gentleman won his seat, and I am sure that he will contribute to making Parliament once again the focal point of the nation. When I first entered this place, the odd word would occasionally dribble on to the BBC; now, alas, he will be lucky if that happens.
	Again, unlike many continental public and private broadcasting systems, which have a serious discursive approach to democratic politics, we have the objectivity of the  Daily Mail, the approach to Europe of  The Spectator and, as we saw in an interview with the Deputy Prime Minister last week, higher standards with regard to prurience in  Hello and  Heat than on the "Today" programme .
	While I do not object to the odd high salary for some ladies and gentlemen who amuse us, I am far from convinced that the licence fee should be used for generally upping a huge number of the salaries and pensions paid in what is, after all, a public service profession. Everybody employed by the BBC is paid from that regressive tax. I have been told by the director-general that if he does not pay such salaries, everyone will go off to the private sector. Let them do so. An auction should be held, and the controller of BBC 1 should be paid, let us say, a bit more than the Prime Minister—£200,000 a year. Then we will see young men and women transform the BBC, instead of those friends, colleagues and associates of mine from 35 years ago who have been polishing seats ever since on their way to huge salaries and high pensions.
	The BBC needs to link up internationally. It should connect with EuroNews, for example, bringing together BBC World and News 24, to create an effective, impartial international news television channel, which the world needs. The best part of the BBC, of course, is the World Service, which is also paid for by the taxpayer, but directly from the Foreign Office grant. I am proud that the Foreign Office has cut back on other vital diplomatic and overseas work to protect the BBC and the British Council.
	When I hear the Chairman of the PublicAccounts Committee, representing National Audit Office inquiries, making partisan and often trivial points on the radio, I do not agree that the NAO is necessarily the right body to examine the BBC's accounts. However, because the BBC is funded by the taxpayer, we do have the right to as much transparency in its accounts as there should be in Government or local council accounts. BBC employees are public servants. We have the right to know each and every one of their salaries, and there should be a register of those employees' interests so that we know which companies are paying some stars for appearances and how much. When those ladies and gentlemen pump out lines to take, we will therefore know who is influencing them.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State andthe Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), who will reply to the debate, are working hard on this issue. They are right to seek to defend the BBC against the Conservative party and all the other right-wing attempts to Fox-ise it and reduce its role. I am just not convinced, however, by the arguments, which seem—if I may finish on a "Doctor Who" analogy—to come from a parallel universe not inhabited by my constituents. The BBC has done important work for the last 80 years, but Britain has one of the weakest media sectors of any modern democratic country. Australia, New Zealand and Canada have much more local television and radio spreading the news about products, services, local ideas and problems in a way that helps to generate economic activity. I am concerned that the BBC's spread into what it calls local television will crowd out independent companies trying to get going.
	I cannot possibly vote for the wholly opportunistic amendment tabled by the Conservative party. It is a great regret that the Opposition tabled it because we could have had a much better debate were it not for their rather cheap attempt to exploit the issue. I must announce to my right hon. and hon. Friends, however, that, for the first time under a Labour Government, I will not be able to go into the Lobby with them tonight. Unless we have a new approach to the BBC, I cannot support the huge amounts of money that my constituents have to pay, its lack of transparency, or the way in which it is spreading into every nook and cranny of the media instead of allowing a new media to flourish, create jobs and show that Britain can again lead the world in media development in the 21st century.

Paul Holmes: Almost every Member of the House would agree that the BBC has led the field over the past 80 years. It is the best public sector broadcaster in the world, with a record of quality and innovation and an unassailable record of public trust, both here and abroad. That public trust, for example, makes the new BBC middle east television service so important. Regrettably, however, that service will only be on for 12 hours a day because of the lack of £6 million a year. That is in the context of BBC income of between £3 billion and £4 billion, and of a BBC presenter such as Jonathan Ross being paid£6 million a year for three years, as part of his contract. I say that as an admirer of Jonathan Ross, his Radio 2 programme and his wit and humour. He may have gone a little too far on a chat show with some politician recently, but in general, he is an excellent presenter. None the less, I wonder whether at least part of a£6 million a year salary might be better spent on other things, such as the BBC's middle east television service.
	The respect felt for the BBC across the world is the reason why even the independent sector's recent lobbying of us, in advance of this debate, started by saying how much it, too, values the BBC, before expressing concerns about its spending power getting out of hand. That admiration for the BBC and its track record is the reason why we must never go down the USA route of an almost purely commercial market, with a grossly underfunded public sector broadcast element. That almost exclusively advertiser-driven market is the reason why Bruce Springsteen can justifiably sing that there are 57 channels but nothing is on—that is on the "Human Touch" album, should hon. Members wish to follow up the reference—and that a satirical comic genius like Bill Hicks was censored off the David Letterman show more than once because the advertisers and sponsors would not have approved.
	Things change, and the new charter and licence fee settlement are about managing the next decade of change. Things have changed in the past. I can just remember, as a young boy, the pirate radio battle led by Radio Caroline, from which Radio 1 developed, then the independents, and then the network of localised stations such as the excellent Peak 107 or Peak FM based in Chesterfield. Some now argue that the BBC should not still deliver Radio 1 and 2, in competition with the popular music-based commercial sector, while the BBC argues in return that those two stations carry more live and recorded interview and concert time for new and old bands than any rival. Sky argued that the BBC should not develop 24-hour news. Others oppose internet provision. However, can a trusted brand such as the BBC really be excluded from such major developments in media platforms? Not unless it was to become a completely irrelevant and outdated fossil.
	The trick in shaping the BBC's new charter, its funding for the next 10 years and its purpose as a pre-eminent public sector broadcaster is to allow it to continue to innovate and provide quality—as it has done in its famed documentary series, in the cutting-edge "Doctor Who" episodes that concluded last Saturday, or even in its more controversial 1 million free Beethoven downloads—but without making it so cash-rich that it monopolises any market that it chooses, stifling all its rivals in the process. Providing BBC computers to schools in the 1980s, when I was teaching in the classroom, was not really appropriate for the BBC and soon came to an end. I fought battles on behalf of the Derbyshire branch of the Federation of Small Businesses over the perceived danger of the BBC dominating the educational software and online educational television market. I have been lobbied by my local papers, the  Derbyshire Times and  The Star in Sheffield, over BBC web content, and by ITV Yorkshire and Central about the potential dangers from a cash-rich and too dominant BBC.
	Do the Government's proposals for the new charter succeed in squaring the circle, reconciling quality and innovation with the danger that the BBC will become too cash-rich and dominant? Do they tackle the four perceived problems identified by Michael Grade himself at a seminar in Millbank Tower on 30 March? The first was elephantiasis: the BBC was seen by many as being too big, too fat and too careless of the independents who were trampled along the road. The second was inefficiency: the BBC was seen as a public service with too much money. The third was management capture of the governors, and the fourth was a lack of accountability. Of course, Michael Grade went on to try and refute all those perceptions, but the fact that he could so quickly and easily identify the four main criticisms of the BBC speaks for itself.
	What of the BBC trust? The Secretary of State said that the Government had consulted widely, but they ignored most of the consultation responses which called repeatedly for a truly independent regulator. The House of Lords Select Committee said that
	"proposals for reforming the governance...of the BBC are confusing, misguided and unworkable."
	The White Paper described the BBC trust as a
	"sovereign body within the BBC."
	The chairman of the BBC trust would still be called the chairman of the BBC.
	While the trust is an improvement on what has gone before, it does not go far enough. The BBC remains ultimately its own judge and jury; who will trust the BBC—who will trust its trust, indeed—to make the right judgments on whether it is dominating a marketplace unfairly? As ITN has pointed out, the BBC trust remains the
	"only enforcer of the Fair Trading rules"
	in some areas, such as the relationship between BBC Worldwide and the BBC licence fee-funded arm. Yet that is exactly the area about which ITN complains most often.
	We would prefer a completely independent regulator to cover all public service broadcasters, not just the BBC. Michael Grade's own answer to one of the problems he had identified—lack of accountability—was that
	"the trust has a duty to take account of licence payers' views".
	That simply is not good enough: there must be a more independent regulator.
	As has often been said, the National Audit Office—mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire)—could play a much greater role, to everyone's benefit. There is disagreement and there are conflicting claims over the figures used in the BBC's licence fee application. The NAO could provide an objective and expert assessment of the conflicting figures in the Indepen and PKF reports, and the dispute over how the increase in the number of single households and thence the increase in licence fee income is accounted for, before the setting of the licence fee, rather than just scrutinising finances retrospectively. The whole process could take place in a much more open and transparent way.
	Much has been said today about the digital switchover. Part of the licence fee debate relates to its costs, and the costs of targeted assistance to help vulnerable people cope with it. Those are matters of Government policy, and the costs should not be borne by the BBC licence fee payer through a form of stealth tax based on flat-rate poll tax principles. Like free television licences for those over 75, such Government policy costs should be borne directly by the Treasury, not factored into the licence fee increase. The money that the Government will raise from the sale of the freed-up spectrum is one obvious source of funding, which could also preclude a spectrum tax on public service broadcasters.
	As the Secretary of State said, another aspect of digital switchover involves the relationship between the BBC and Channel 4 as PSBs. That extends to the relationship with S4C in Wales. We are delighted that the negotiations between the BBC and S4C are progressing so well, and we hope that an agreement between them will give S4C more control over production and programming. A clearer understanding of the financial relationship between the BBC and S4C will benefit Welsh viewers and licence fee payers alike.
	I have already mentioned a number of issues that affect calculations of the licence fee, and the disputed costings presented by the BBC. The licence fee is the "least worst" of the available funding options.

Paul Holmes: Strangely enough, I was about to add that the only apparent bias I have discerned in 20 or30 years of BBC-watching is the BBC's all too common tendency to ignore the third party in British politics, which regularly receives 20 per cent. of the vote of the population.

Alan Keen: I would like to make a few points almost at random, rather than reading out any of the briefings that have been sent around. To show it is at random, I shall start with the notes I made when my right hon. Friendthe Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was speaking. Thank goodness he left the BBC a long time ago, because he said that not many of his constituents watch the BBC, or did he say that none of them did so? I think that the reason he gave was that it does not present Parliament very well. At least two Opposition Members shouted something out that I took to mean that they wanted more of Parliament on the BBC. I think that we have damaged our credibility already, before we have even started the debate.
	A few years ago, the issue came before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, when the BBC wanted to switch "Yesterday in Parliament" from 8.45 am on Radio 4 FM to long wave. There were many complaints in the House. Hundreds of Members signed an earlyday motion. I was probably the only one who said that I would not sign it. I asked Members whether they had really thought about it. I said that, if we could not persuade more than 30 of us to walk 25 yd down the Corridor to listen to us, why should we make3 million people listen to "Yesterday in Parliament" on the radio? The reason why the BBC wanted to switch it to long wave was, of course, that it did not want to lose 3 million listeners in one fell swoop. Therefore, if we really believe that it is the poor presentation of Parliament on the BBC that reduces the number of viewers, we will struggle to persuade people about anything.
	I support the new charter and will discuss one small aspect of it. I was an admirer of the previous chair and the director-general of the BBC. I was particularly saddened when they were both forced to resign by the then board. I recognised the problem pretty quickly. The strength of the then chair, acting as an executive chairman along with the director-general, was an Achilles heel when it came to realising that something had gone wrong.
	We had an early meeting with the all-party group on the BBC. The then acting director-general came along. I asked him immediately whether he agreed that there should be two chairs, one chairing the board itself and one acting as an executive chairman. I asked the same question in the Select Committee on a number of occasions. No one agreed with me that that would be a good idea, but I see that it is going to happen, so it is possible to have a chair working with the executive proactively within the BBC, as well as a chairman or chairwoman of the trust itself. That is a great step forward.
	It took people longer than it took me—I am giving myself some praise—to realise that. I would like to make a personal appeal to the current chair of the BBC that he uses his vast experience, skill and knowledge of the industry to work on the proactive side of the divide, rather than be chair of the trust. We need his experience alongside the director-general, pushing the BBC forward.
	A separate issue is democracy. I was delighted to read the report of the previous debate, which unfortunately I could not attend after the first 10 minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) mentioned democracy and said:
	"There is hardly a television programme on the BBC these days that does not involve people voting for somebody or something."—[ Official Report, 21 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 1338.]
	Why cannot the public therefore be allowed to vote in some way for the members of the trust who will represent them? Those people will control where their money goes each year. It is something we should look at. It is a very difficult issue. The House is probably the last place in the world that will condemn representative democracy, but we have the technology nowadays. It is not easy but we should look at the possibility of at least some of the members of that trust being elected directly through the increasingly efficient method that the various television companies employ, usually on a Saturday night.
	I would like to talk quite personally for a few moments. It is easy to criticise the licence fee as being regressive. By strict definition, it probably is, but if you do not mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will speak about my own experience. When I was brought up I did not know what a university was. My grammar school head teacher could do nothing to persuade me to stay on at school for two more years or to go to university—to disappear somewhere, when I was not sure where or what it was. After that, what job would I do? I could not be convinced. I have regretted it many times since, but, apart from sport on the BBC, I do not watch anything unless it enhances my knowledge of the world, whether it be science, astronomy or whatever. All my education has probably come from the BBC. We have to be careful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham may be right that not enough of his constituents watch the BBC, but he must not say that none of them do. I have spent a lot of my life watching it and the benefits to me have been immense.
	We are discussing a difficult problem today. We must realise that it is sometimes difficult for hard-up people to pay the licence fee. The value they get from it is immense but the very people who would stop paying it if it became a subscription would be those whose children would most benefit from it, so we must be careful.
	I shall give an example of value for money. Again, I am repeating something that the Select Committee came across during its proceedings. A while ago, we had the chairman of Artsworld in front of us. He was complaining about the BBC stepping into areas from which the commercial world was attempting to make profits. I said to him that I would love to have Artsworld, which is free on Sky. Perhaps in a BBC debate, we should not advertise Sky, but Artsworld is a wonderful channel. That gentleman is a respected and skilled television executive. His company was charging £6 a month, or £72 a year for one arts channel, good as it is, compared with, at that time, £121 for the wholeof the BBC's output. That is why it is not a straightforward problem. We tend to see things in black and white in here, especially when we face each other across the Chamber. We need to give entrepreneurs and the people in the media who are proactive in the creative industries the opportunity to produce the sort of viewing that we want people to see, but it is expensive. It is a difficult problem to manage. I wish I knew all the answers. That is an example of the wonderful value of the BBC, even if the licence fee goes up to £180 a year.

John Whittingdale: Well, to an extent I am crystal-ball gazing, but I think that the new technology will make a difference. For the first time, the viewer will have access to thousands of different programmes and films that can be summoned up with the press of a button. We have not had anything like that before, and it is bound to change people's habits. Scheduling will continue to some extent, and the Secretary of State was right to talk about the importance of water cooler moments. People will still want to all watch the same programme and then gather the next day to talk about it, but broadcasting will be hugely different in the future. In fact, that will make it harder to enforce public service obligations on commercial channels, so to that extent the BBC will have a stronger role in providing real public service broadcasting. My criticism of the BBC in the past is that it has strayed too far from that core responsibility of the provision of public service broadcasting.
	Given that the BBC rightly has ambitions to move into the new areas of technology, it is right for it to say that whichever platform the viewer or listener chooses to access programmes, they will find the BBC there. That means that very strong safeguards need to be built in, as several hon. Members have pointed out. There is a real danger that the BBC, with all its resources and power, will distort the market in those new areas. That is why the charter is so important.
	The Secretary of State has talked about the charter being subject to greater consultation and transparency than ever before. It is true that we have had consultation, with lots of seminars, a Green Paper and a White Paper. However, all the feedback from that consultation has been largely ignored. The enormous reports commissioned at vast expense by the commercial broadcasters have all reached conclusions, none of which seem to have been accepted bythe Government. The Burns committee, set up bythe Government, produced some very good recommendations, including the establishment of a public service broadcasting authority, but that too was rejected by the Government.
	The House of Lords Select Committee wrote to the Secretary of State saying:
	"Despite so much informed opposition to your plans you have rejected almost every one of our recommendations for improving the model".
	There is not much point in having huge amounts of consultation if the Government give the impression that their mind has been made up before the consultation even started, and nothing will change as a result of it.
	The concerns rightly centre on the new structure of governance. I admit that the BBC Trust is an improvement on the board of governors, in that the separation between the board and the executive will be clearer. They will actually be geographically separate, but the trust will still be part of the BBC. According to the charter, the first job of the BBC Trust will be to set the strategic direction for the BBC. It still looks very like a board of governors: the first four appointees to the trust are all existing BBC governors. I have a great deal of respect for some of those individuals, especially one of them, whom I worked alongside for some time and for whom I have a high regard. However, I hope that in future appointments to the BBC Trust we will look a little further than those who have worked inside the BBC or who have a history of working with the BBC.
	I hope that the new appointees will bring a degree of scepticism. If the BBC Trust is truly to be a proper external regulator, as the BBC likes to claim and the Government try to claim, it is important that its members must be genuinely independent of mind and willing—indeed, positively keen—to criticise the BBC when it is going wrong.
	The most important factor will be oversight of the new services. The creative future spelled out by Mark Thompson represents a huge ambition. The Beethoven week experience, when the number of downloads of Beethoven symphonies was far in excess of the BBC's expectations, shows that even a pilot scheme can have a vast impact on the market. I welcome the BBC's recognition that the Beethoven week caused the music industry profound concern, so it changed the format for the Bach week so that whole BBC symphonies were not available free for downloading. That was a welcome recognition of the fact that the BBC needs to work with commercial companies, not in competition with them.
	Even BBC pilots can have great impact, so I was slightly concerned when Mark Thompson announced recently that the corporation is to extend its podcasting trial
	"for some months to come".
	That initiative has not been subject to any of the tests to which the Secretary of State has rightly drawn attention, and there is concern that such trials, which may last for several months, may themselves distort the market. There is a case for their being subject to some kind of assessment before they are launched.
	When new services are launched it is vital that each should have its own service licence and be subject to a market impact assessment. That those assessments are to be conducted by Ofcom is a step forward, but even though Ofcom has some role in the process, the eventual decision about the public value test still rests with the BBC, which is unsatisfactory. Furthermore, it is of some concern that although the market impact assessment is carried out by Ofcom, it is subject to the oversight of the joint steering group, half of whose members are from Ofcom and half from the BBC. The BBC will still have considerable power over the assessment.
	That situation is unsatisfactory. It bears a depressing similarity to the arrangements for the National Audit Office, which has some access to the BBC's accounts, but only subject to agreement with the BBC. I fully endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and all the others who have said that the situation must change. The BBC enjoys vast amounts of public money, so it should be subject to the same efficiency scrutiny as every other part of the public sector.
	As the chairman says in his annual report, the missing piece of the jigsaw is the licence fee settlement. He told the Select Committee a year ago that the figure for which the BBC has bid—2.3 per cent. above inflation—was a reduction from the original sum proposed in the BBC, and that he had somehow beaten it down to 2.3 per cent. over inflation. The Secretary of State, on the other hand, has said that she regards that figure as an opening bid.
	I hope that we shall look carefully at each part of the bid, because each seems somewhat excessive. The BBC says that it needs an extra £1.4 billion just to meet the increase in base costs. It talks about super-inflation in broadcasting costs, but if anybody is responsible for that, the prime culprit is the BBC itself. I shall not get drawn too far down the salaries road, although it seems extremely unwise to award quite such enormous increases at a time when the BBC is asking its staff to suffer painful reductions in the number employed and in their pension entitlements. At the very least, such increases are somewhat insensitive.
	On top of the base cost increase, the BBC wants another £1.6 billion for quality content. No new services are being launched in the main broadcasting area, so that £1.6 billion will go straight into programming, which must further increase the inflation. Then there are things such as the spectrum tax, for which the BBC says that it needs £300 million. However, Treasury Ministers tell me that currently there are no proposals for such a tax, so the BBC has put in a bid for a precise—and large—sum before any proposals for the tax have even been introduced. I hope that we shall look at all those components, and I look forward to hearing the Government's announcement, when it finally comes, about the future of the licence fee.
	I want to touch on the contribution made by the BBC's commercial activities to keeping down licence fee costs. It is certainly right that the BBC should exploit the value of its assets to the full. The BBC brand is a powerful one and it is worth money, so it is right that the commercial arm of the BBC—BBC Worldwide—should try to get a return for the licence fee payer from the use of that brand. However, that has resulted in the BBC extending its activities into areas that are a million miles removed from broadcasting.
	The BBC is now the third largest consumer magazine publisher in Britain; it has 50 titles, 21 of which are in the children's market. It recently launched a magazine called  Amy for five to eight-year-old girls. Apart from the fact that CBBC was printed across the top of the magazine, it bore no relation to any BBC programme. The BBC decided that it wanted to become the third biggest magazine publisher in Britain, and I am sure that it has ambitions to become the second, if not the first.
	BBC Worldwide recently bid for and acquired seven radio licences in India—not the World Service, but BBC Worldwide. The BBC is now a big player in the radio market in India. It also has a joint venture to create one of India's largest magazine companies. Where does it stop? Would it be right for the BBC to set up chain of antique shops under an "Antiques Roadshow" brand? Perhaps it could move into car dealerships based on the success of "Top Gear". There must be a limit to what the BBC does.
	The BBC's original purpose was to provide public service broadcasting—to do things that the market will not provide. That is why I support the BBC, but it worries me when it extends its power and we hear the director-general saying that he wants to build the BBC into a competitor to Microsoft or Google. It is all very well to be ambitious, but the evolution of the BBC into a worldwide conglomerate is not appropriate. It takes us too far away from the corporation's original remit.
	As long as the BBC is capable of providing good-quality public service broadcasting, of which there are plenty of examples, I shall support it, but strong safeguards are needed. I am not sure that the charter proposed by the Government goes far enough in building in safeguards to ensure that the BBC maintains the quality we expect in its public service output while not becoming over-mighty and inflicting real damage on some of its commercial competitors, who are struggling to survive in a difficult broadcasting environment.

Austin Mitchell: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in his detailed criticisms, many of which were telling. I want to take a more broad-brush approach, because as this is probably our last debate on the BBC before charter renewal we should take the opportunity to look at the institution and its effectiveness overall, in the round, rather than going into the detailed criticisms that we all want to make.
	We must accept that the BBC is a great British institution. The BBC is a nursery of talent, a sustainer of quality and a bastion of public service; abroad, it is often a better flag-bearer for Britain than the Foreign Office. We should defend it rather than, as the Opposition seem to be doing, damning it with faint praise, or, as the commercial rivals seem to be doing, praising it with loud damns. That is the approach of Rupert Murdoch, ITV, and Kelvin MacKenzie.
	I am a big admirer of Rupert Murdoch—perhaps the only one on the Labour side of the House—but he uses  The Times and  The Sun to snipe constantly at the BBC and defend the interests of Sky. The commercial rivals praise competition, then blame their own failures on the idea that the BBC is too powerful a competitor. I admit that the BBC can be infuriating, particularly to anybody who has ever worked for it, but it is a magnificent institution, which we should praise and try to improve rather than carp at as opponents outside and inside the House are doing.
	I too want to express broad support for the Government's proposals. My support is, however, not unqualified. Like the previous speaker, I do not see how the trust is going to emerge. These days it is all trusts; we are creating trusts all over the place. Well, I do not necessarily trust the trusts. The original concept of the governors was that there would be a buffer to protect the BBC from attacks from outside, relating to the corporation through the director-general. If there were points of dissatisfaction with the corporation, the governors would not intervene; the director-general would simply be fired. That was the original approach—but it has certainly broken down, and something had to be done. It has broken down because the governors began to interfere far too much, and because many of the appointments, particularly under the Conservative Government, were mediocrities. They were political appointments.
	The breakdown was also caused by what happened when the corporation was attacked. In this case it was my Government who were doing the attacking, led by Alastair Campbell. There was a disgraceful onslaught on the BBC, arising from a 6 am news broadcast—most of which was correct, but some of which was inaccurate. That was followed by the disgraceful whitewash of the Hutton report. When that happened, and the Government attempted to scalp Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies—which they ultimately succeeded in doing—instead of defending the institution and its chief executives, the governors stabbed them in the back and demolished the ground under their feet. In doing that, the governors sealed their own fate.
	How is the trust to work? That is still an unknown area. The trust will be the advocate of the people and a watchdog for the people. If it is going to be those things, it needs to be powerful, effective and representative. It needs, for instance, to include a trade union representative, a representative of employees of the BBC, and representatives of the varied interests and regions of this country. It has to have its own roots and tentacles reaching out into society to know what the people think. If it is just a vehicle for pressure from outside by the press, pressure groups and competitors, it will undermine the BBC rather than give it effective leadership. That is still to be worked out, and I have certain anxieties.
	I do not agree that the proportion of BBC programmes being put out to competitive tender should be increased to 50 per cent. That is disastrous. The BBC has a reputation and a role as a trainer of staff, a sustainer of quality staff and a developer of new programmes. The independent sector is much more cheap-jack. It does not train people; it employs people trained by the BBC. With one or two exceptions—"Big Brother" is one—it does not innovate. It goes for established personalities and programmes. It does not risk new ideas as a big corporation like the BBC can. The 50 per cent. requirement will be damaging to the BBC.
	I do not see, either, why Ofcom has to be given new responsibilities to vet new ventures and new initiatives by the BBC. Those are a matter for the BBC. It is certainly true that the BBC has been too prone to build an empire. I was a strong critic of News 24, which started five years too early. That meant that it was an enormous waste of licence fee payers' money. It appealed to a very small audience—for years, it had an audience of about 50,000, although its programmes are financed by all of us as licence fee payers. Now that the audience is beginning to build up, there is a case for News 24.
	However, now there is also the over-extension to new digital channels on radio and television, and in relation to the internet. There has been boastful and unnecessary talk of challenging AOL and Google. That is a delusion of grandeur, not a necessary development. However, the responsibility for deciding on those new channels should be left to the BBC, with public service issues in mind, rather than censured or controlled by a body outside the BBC that is more concerned with the commercial operations of the market.
	My further point of dissent is the issue of the licence fee. We are all ambivalent about the licence fee. We do not like it. Certainly, we do not like the fact that it is an oppressive poll tax, particularly for the less well-off. In the past, the means of enforcement have been fairly brutal. A number of women were sent to jail because they were the ones at home—while their husbands were out having a beer—when the detectives called, and were therefore responsible for using the television set without a licence. That was an absolute disgrace. Fortunately, the numbers have been reduced, but the machinery for enforcement is still brutal.
	On the other hand, although we do not like the licence fee, we can see no real alternative. We have to bring public money into the field of production. Advertising cannot support everything. If the pigs are all swilling from the same trough, they are going to produce the same manure. We need a variety of funding, such as the licence fee provides for the BBC. Not to have it would lead to cheap-jack programmes and would cut out public service programmes. We need the licence fee. However, I do not see any reason why the BBC licence fee, which is a precious and fragile instrument—things are getting increasingly difficult as it gets higher—should be required to bear the cost of digital switchover. That benefits all the other competitors in the market. Why should they not pay for it too? It is a Government responsibility, since the Government will derive profit from selling off the channels freed by digital switchover. Why, therefore, should the cost be put on the licence fee?
	We have a responsibility to audit the BBC's claims publicly. I think that a 2.3 per cent. increase is unacceptable. In the last period, the increase followed the retail prices index plus 1.5 per cent. The figure of 2.3 per cent. is too high. The public need confidence that things will be properly controlled. Mercifully, the Government are now assessing the matter, with an outside examination of the BBC's claims to that licence fee increase—rightly so, because the public need to be reassured that it is acceptable and necessary, and that it has been effectively audited.
	We all have our criticisms of the BBC. That is particularly true of anybody who has worked for it, as I have. When I was introducing it, the BBC decided to call "24 Hours" a day and close down the whole programme; that was my main achievement at BBC television. Frankly, working for Rupert Murdoch was a much more pleasurable experience than working for the faceless, bureaucratic, over-administered BBC. That is where the cuts should be made.
	As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said, as BBC staff were asked to accept a pay increase of 2.3 per cent., the massive increases given to BBC executives were obscene. The huge payments made to presenters so that the BBC can poach all the available talent in the market of commercial radio or television need to be effectively audited and externally controlled. The reduction of effort on politics and current affairs at prime time and on the main channels is deplorable.
	In sum, however, those are minor matters. They are pimples on the bum of the BBC's body politic, and they should not concern us in such a debate when we need to concentrate on the scale of the BBC's achievements, the quality of its programmes and its role as a nursery of talent and ideas, and a training ground for skills. It is one of the few British institutions that is not only accepted but respected all round the world. We should ask ourselves how we can best sustain that, rather than how we can join in the chorus of carping criticism from interested outside parties. Sustaining that is our purpose and the Government's purpose, so I will be supporting the Government tonight—a rare occasion!

Tim Boswell: I stand corrected, because the accession and the coronation itself happened in different years.
	Interestingly, for the first time ever, more people watched the coronation than listened to it on radio. People gathered together for a shared national experience in a way that is described as a water-cooler experience half a century later. Three years later, there was the revolutionary and highly controversial introduction of the second channel, ITV. How great a contrast with now because, as the Secretary of State said, there are now hundreds of digital channels that cater for, but are not always watched by, extensive private interests.
	The most interesting feature of the digital revolution is the way in which the need to consider limitations of time and place is being eroded. For example—this reflects our country's transmitter history—although I live in the east midlands, I still find it extremely difficult to receive east midlands television. However, I can immediately do so through digital. Perhaps more significantly, it is only recently that I have become aware of the extent to which overseas people, such as those in eastern Europe, listen to BBC radio broadcasts on the web. They listen to not just the World Service, but domestic programmes, so a huge footprint has developed.
	Mention of the overseas situation reminds me of the important and central role of the BBC both at home and abroad. Perhaps the World Service exemplifies some of the traditional virtues more clearly than anything else. However, the essential message—the distinctive proposition—of the BBC, which was well and loyally developed by the hon. Member forGreat Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), is one of qualityand objectivity, alongside which there marches independence. Those should properly remain the watchwords of the corporation. However, I would not like to turn that into a coded plea for the BBC to be stranded inside a narrow definition of public service broadcasting as a weird minority activity, as if, metaphorically, the set was tuned permanently to Radio 3, not that I mind listening to Radio 3 on occasions. I am not even absolutely sure what the definition of "market failure" is. I am more interested in providing acceptable choices for consumers. If the digital system and the wide range of commercial broadcasters cannot do that, there is a perfectly proper continuing role for public service broadcasting in the BBC.
	It is right to offer services that are targeted at a wide range of interests and groups, provided that the three watchwords that I set out are maintained. As a fairly natural and instinctive supporter of the BBC, it would not be sensible—if I may return to my childhood for a moment—to act as the eponymous Mr. Grouser of Toytown on "Children's Hour", who was always grumbling and niggling about minor infelicities and errors of taste or presentation. In fact, I would not wish to do so about the commercial sector, either. It is right to consider the range of output as a whole and the fact that the BBC—thank goodness—can still turn out programmes of exceptional quality.
	In a month in which many, if not most, of us will have turned our minds towards the World cup—incidentally, hon. Members will have noticed that there has been fairly trenchant criticism of the BBC's World cup coverage, although I leave that aside—it is right to record that last weekend I watched consecutively on the BBC programmes about the Somme and Italy, both of which were highly educational and informative. One, although perhaps not the other, was certainly entertaining. The best programmes can embrace elements of all that.
	I also want to acknowledge the recovery of the BBC under Mark Thompson, the new director-general, and Michael Grade, its chairman, following that dark night of depression and loss of self-confidence that was perhaps wished on it following the Hutton report. I felt that the corporation suffered more than it deserved to, and the situation must have been difficult for staff at all levels of the organisation.
	We cannot leave matters in a warm bath of uncritical adulation. When preparing my thoughts for today's debate, I kept returning to the words in "Measure for Measure":
	"O! it is excellent
	To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous
	To use it like a giant."
	The way in which the BBC fits into overall provision still leaves me with concerns that temper my natural support for the corporation. Before I move on to the charter, I will thus touch briefly on three matters.
	I am still genuinely concerned about the high level of cross-promotion of BBC programmes, which is partly a conceptual issue. I have never quite kept count of whether the advertisements on the BBC for itself are more prevalent than advertisements for other products on the independent sector. However, the number of such advertisements seems excessive from time to time. They are no longer used as fillers. Obviously it is appropriate to use any time that there is to spare, but the BBC seems to have developed two cultures: a radio culture that stills worries about crunching the pips and performs on time; and a television culture that allows the evening to drift on. I am not the kind of person who would argue that the World cup final should be interrupted by the news—I would not want that—but there is a degree of inappropriate sloppiness.
	Secondly, there is still more work to be done to improve communication. We have broadly got there with subtitles, except perhaps on BBC Parliament, but the use of audio description and signing is still comparatively minor.
	Thirdly, we must consider the role of the BBC as a dominant producer, even following recent changes. This is something on which I would clash swords with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby because I welcome moving the amount of production by the independent sector to 50 per cent. because that is the minimum that is required to give that sector sufficient headroom to flourish. I would not mind if the figure eventually went beyond that, although I certainly would not drive it up to 100 per cent.
	Behind all that is the reality of a huge income from licence fee payers, which is now more than £3 billion. Incidentally, owing to the growth in the number of households, that is not subject to any significant fiscal drag. However, when one considers the techniques and technology used to raise that money, even if operations are more efficient than they ever were—I have been to see the national television licensing office in Bristol—it is absolutely clear that a pretty old-fashioned approach is adopted.
	It is due to such considerations, especially the income, that the giant's strength needs careful tying down externally. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who opened the debate for our party, was entirely right to express his detailed concerns on exactly those matters that worry me.
	In essence, my plea is for greater transparency in our approach to the BBC. I go back once again to the early days—indeed to a time long before my memories of the BBC began—when, leaving aside the listeners, as they were then, there were only two parties to the transaction, the BBC and the Government, and doing a deal was relatively easy. It may not have been entirely reputable and it may not have been the perfect deal, but at least it was feasible, and there were no other players on the field to displace. I would dare to go further and say that only the stern rectitude and independence of Lord Reith—plus, perhaps, the contingent fact of the intervention of world war two, when the BBC's reputation soared—enabled the BBC's potentially difficult inwardness to be used positively.
	Now, of course, many other players and interests are engaged. Government Members should not think that, if we raise issues, it automatically means that we have an interest or are seeking to diminish the BBC; we raise them because we would like it to be more successful, and that requires a fresh approach. That is particularly relevant to the regime for regulation imposed on the various broadcasting players. For example, on the points made about the way in which the NAO regulates public bodies, I fail to understand why the BBC should be in a different position from any other recipient of public funds. I fail to understand why Ofcom can regulate other broadcasting agencies but not the BBC.
	I am glad, and I acknowledge it, that the strains in governance that became apparent after the Hutton disaster have been eased by the establishment of a separate BBC Trust, but that trust still does not have full independence. Nor is there an NAO audit; indeed, we do not have details of the forthcoming licence fee increase or a full justification for it being set at inflation plus 2.3 per cent., despite the fact that even the Department of Health will not receive anything better than that in future, and most Departments will not receive anything beyond inflation. Alongside that, the costs of digitisation, and particularly of the social interventions necessary to make that a tolerable process and to maintain universal access, remain opaque.
	In conclusion, for the BBC to play to its undoubted strengths of quality and objectivity, it needs to be able to demonstrate independence, including, critically, independence of governing. It need not fear objective regulation and audit of what is in effect—admittedly, for all purposes—public money, any more than a private sector corporation should fear that when discharging its public duties under licence. The downside of those essentially healthy pressures would be far less damaging than the continuation of cosyand imprecise deals with Government, in which the BBC continues to receive or—perhaps no less importantly—is thought to receive special privileges in return for putting some of its large resources towards discharging what is essentially the Government's business, for example in digitisation.
	The settlement of the charter renewal is essentially an interim one, both in its response to technology, and in its response to governance issues. We will need to go further in due course. In doing so, I hope passionately that we will respect the BBC as a power for good and that we will try to achieve a better mix that enables and encourages it to act responsibly, both to its viewers and to other providers of broadcasting services, and in doing so to maintain its distinctive, remarkable and unique qualities, which have made it a world brand of which we should be proud, and which we wish to support. However, we believe that the best contribution to its support would be not to leave unchanged, but to alter and improve, its arrangements to make it more effective in future.

Tony Wright: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred to the fact that we have just emerged from a period of saturation football coverage. It is worth recalling that in the early days of televised sport the BBC was required to avoid advertising placards around sports grounds, which, it believed, contaminated its purpose. Today, of course, no sportsman is interviewed unless there are at least30 logos decorating every part of his body and the surrounding apparatus.
	That is a reminder that there has always been something different about the BBC—and I, for one, hope that that will always be the case. The BBC was different—and this relates directly to the arguments about crowding out—because its purpose was to crowd out a view that our culture should be commercialised. It took the view that it was important to crowd out the inferior, the second rate, and things that were culturally corrosive. No doubt, that reflected the view of the time but, I hope, it reflects a larger and longer view, too. I confess to total, irrevocable prejudice in favour of the BBC, which is probably the best thing about living in this country. The idea of life without Radio 4 is unthinkable. I accept that that reflects my age and class, but there are not many things of which I can say so these days. I detected in the contributions of some hon. Members a certain loss of confidence in the institution which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, is one of the few British institutions that is universally admired once one leaves these shores.
	It would be unfortunate if a loss of confidence prevented us from seeing the BBC for what it is. In these debates, some Government Members always want to find good reasons to defend the BBC while noting deficiencies while, interestingly, some Opposition Members always search for reasons to erode the BBC while making general protestations of support. That has been reflected in what has been said today. The BBC is different for all of us, because we think we own it. Indeed, it often likes to tell us that we own it, and stages events such as "Your BBC". The problem, however, is that we have delusions of ownership, as our feelings about the BBC are different from our feelings about other institutions. When those institutions misbehave or do things that we do not like, we say, "Oh well, that is simply how the market works" or "That is how the world is". With the BBC, it is a more personal, intimate relationship, and we think that our institution is behaving wrongly.
	To cite an example that has surfaced in our debate, a week or two ago, Mr. Jonathan Ross decided to askthe Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition whetherhe used to masturbate when he looked at pictures of Mrs. Thatcher, and many of us were not just embarrassed but affronted. Such incidents make us feel that our institution has let us down. We feel that it has behaved in ways that it should not have behaved.
	When we hear Mr. John Humphrys asking the Deputy Prime Minister last week whether he had affairs with other women, we feel embarrassed for the institution, because we feel it has fallen below standards that we thought made it different from other institutions from which we would expect such behaviour. What is worse about that is not just that it represents a lapse of judgment, but that those who are responsible for these matters inside the organisation proceed to defend what is done. That is the most worrying thing about it—not so much that it is done, as that it is then defended.

Tony Wright: I am grateful for the intervention. I must confess that I am not as familiar with the output of Radio Ulster as I ought to be, but I am interested in the example that the hon. Lady gives. It leads on to probably the only general point that I want to make.
	It is sometimes said that because our media system is fragmenting in the way that our society is fragmenting, the BBC therefore cannot go on being the kind of institution that it has been in a society and a media system that were different. I would turn that argument on its head and say that the more our society and our media system are fragmenting, the more we need somewhere where we can nourish what we used to call—I know it sounds old-fashioned—a common culture. We either think that the moment has gone or that that is not worth doing, or we think that it is pretty fundamental to a society. I happen to think that it is fundamental, and that the BBC plays a pivotal role in the future of that common culture in all kinds of ways which go beyond some of the considerations that have been suggested today.
	I worry about what is happening to this society in a number of respects. I worry about what has happened over the past generation or so. I was told just a few days ago by someone no less than a bishop—I apologise for putting it in this way, but it is the only way I can do it—that the French now refer routinely to the English as "les fuck-offs". They do that because our culture has changed and because the presentation of our culture has changed in our media.
	It used to be said in a different and older Reithian age that it was the mission of the BBC not to go to where people were, but to go to where people are and to take them to a better place. It seems rather arch and old-fashioned to say that now, but the presentation of our culture in the media now has helped to contribute to what has happened to our society.
	It used to be said, again, that we did not have to worry about presentations of violence and coarseness on our media because people were protected from their effects by the structures of family and of community. Those structures have weakened and been eroded, with the effect that for many people now, what is presented in the media is their version of how they think life is lived—of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. That gives a particular obligation to a public service broadcaster, a guardian of the common culture, in how it responds to that situation. It is the distance between "Yes, Minister" a generation ago, a programme of pure wit, and a programme like "The Thick of It" in our time, both garlanded with awards, but very different in terms of the kind of language and behaviour that they reflect.
	The challenges facing the BBC in binding the common culture together are enormous. They are enormous on the political front, too. It has been said that there was a loss of confidence in the wake of Hutton, and I am sure there was. My charge against the BBC is not institutional bias, as has been said by some hon. Members, but a kind of weary cynicism, a lack of civic engagement. It is the BBC's role to do something about the civic ills that beset us. That is what it is charged with doing. The new purposes that the Government have given it under the charter tell it to do precisely that.
	I conclude my brief remarks by saying that the founding mission of the BBC is as important now as it ever was. Yes, it infuriates us. Yes, no doubt it can be a bloated bureaucracy. But the purpose that it was established to perform, which was to prevent our culture from simply being commercialised, to be the yardstick of excellence, which is different from elitism, remains as true now as ever before—in fact, more so, because the pressure crowding out that commitment to excellence across the board is greater now than it ever was before. The pressures of fragmentation in our society are greater than they ever were before. That gives a new, particular and pressing role to the BBC in affirming the purpose for which it was set up 80 years ago, but doing so in new, different and very challenging circumstances.

Peter Bottomley: I am aware of that. I would defend the NAO in the same way as I defend the BBC. All I am trying to say is that the two do not need to get too involved with each other.
	My second point concerns money. We have not spent much time referring to the agreement between the Government and BBC—"Broadcasting. An Agreement Between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation". Seeing a reference to the Secretary of State, I should declare that my wife, when in government, was involved in helping with BBC senior appointments, and she is now a headhunter, and her firm, although not her personally, may still be doing the same sort of thing. I put that on the record, although I shall not draw a point from it.
	Paragraph 78 of the agreement refers to compensation for free television licences. It is odd that we can have this sort of debate without referring to the fact that the Government are providing a great deal of support for the BBC directly because of their support for those over 75. I say that as a way of coming on to my practical point, which is that I hope that the Government and the BBC will find a way of saying to students who are in university lodgings that they do not individually require a television licence. It is bizarre that a child or grandchild of mine living in my house and doing a university course is not required to have a separate television licence, but in a hall of residence every student is in theory supposed to have a television licence if they are to have access to television or broadcasting through either their mobile phone or a television in their room. Speaking on behalf of mature and younger students, I hope that the Government will resolve that in an acceptable way. If it is not possible to build that into this measure, I hope that they will find a way of tackling it.
	I come to the general issue of the BBC around the nation. I happen to spend most of my time listening to Radio 4 in the car; Radio 5 from 5 to 6 in the morning; and then Radio 4 when possible and Radio 2 on Sunday evenings; my consumption of BBC output is usually radio rather than television. That reminds me of one more point that I offer to the BBC through the Secretary of State: can it please try to get the sound from television broadcasts available on digital radio? It is possible in the United States on most radios to pick up television sound, and we should be able to in this country. If one thinks that many people for one reason or another cannot have access to a television, perhaps because they are on a bus or a train, but do have access to radio—having the continuity of picking up television programmes that they are interested in, even if they cannot see them, would be a worthwhile objective.
	The BBC has interesting purposes, which are about bringing the world to the UK and the UK to the world. The idea that the BBC is getting involved in broadcasting around the world does not worry me at all. When I go round the world I want to be able to have access to BBC broadcasting. I understand that in some cases it is done commercially and in some cases it is done otherwise.
	Historically, many of the BBC's initiatives have not been either approved of by Government or funded by Government, including the World Service, the World Television Service, and a number of others. We can trust the BBC to try things and if they do not work, to acknowledge it, and those that work successfully are either continued or modified, as my hon. Friendthe Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford(Mr. Whittingdale) said with regard to the single composer downloads. He and I may agree on some parts of that, but he illustrates a case where the BBC was prepared to pay attention when it succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.
	I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, and I agree with some of the points made about high salaries. For example, for all my fondness of the Dimblebys, I would be perfectly prepared to have Nick Clarke continue doing "Question Time" because he does it very well.

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful that the late start of this debate enables me to speak. It therefore follows that I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at short notice.
	I have in my constituency a substantial amount of the BBC's real estate and a substantial proportion of its work force. I should put it on record that many years ago, for a short period, I enjoyed, if that is the right word, a BBC salary. It was such a short period and such a low salary that I would not even aspire to the £10 a week pension that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) boasted that he will receive. My constituency also has a growing number of independent media businesses which rely directly or indirectly on the BBC. I get many representations from management, staff and independent contractors, who are not always of one mind.
	I will not abuse the time that I have been given by doing anything other than making a limited number of specific points. It is perhaps therefore inevitable that I will be somewhat critical of the BBC, so I bracket my remarks by saying that I share with many Members on both sides of the House a general appreciation of the BBC. I should also say that I support the Government's proposals for ensuring the future and the independence of the BBC, as set out in the charter and agreement.
	The BBC remains the sine qua non of independent media in the UK, however self-satisfied its promotional ads. I sometimes think that these days we see more ads between programmes on the BBC than on ITV; I do not know whether that it has more to do with the collapse in commercial advertising or with preening at White City. The presenters can seem so smug that I sometimes wonder whether we will see John Humphrys interviewing Andrew Marr about what John Simpson meant by his last report. If the Government wanted to get on to the programme, they would probably have to send a text message from the Prime Minister to be read out at the end. We saw the efforts that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) had to make to get on to the BBC. Nevertheless, whatever its faults, and however dumbed down its programmes—I am not of course referring to the right hon. Member for Witney—its resilience stops Sky News from becoming Fox News in this country. I wonder if that is why, at root, Labour Members generally wish the BBC well, and Conservative Members sometimes wish it ill.
	The BBC made a mistake in its recent decision on executive salaries. It was an inappropriate sleight of hand involving giving back as contractual rights most of what had previously been discretionary bonuses, and doing so at a very sensitive time. Many BBC staff are facing relocation, outsourcing or job cuts, and there is considerable anger at the sums of money that are being paid. It is glib of the chairman to say that it is necessary for the purposes of competition. Often, the trouble with the BBC is that it wants to have it both ways. It says that it is the public service broadcaster, yet when it wishes to pay large sums of money to its staff, it says that it has to be a direct competitor with the commercial sector. I support the licence fee, but it brings with it obligations, including economy with public money and accountability.
	The same convenient foot-in-both-camps manner often applies locally, if I may be parochial for a few moments. The BBC is not always a good neighbour. The White City site sits directly next to the White City estate, which is a significant area of deprivation and low income in my constituency. I am not sure that the residents of that estate have always been welcome as employees or, indeed, as visitors to what is now called the media village. I wonder whether the BBC's management have thought through, in land planning terms, the effects of their intended outsourcing, relocation to Salford and redundancies. It has significant land holdings in the area, not only on the existing White City site, where there has been a great deal of office-building over the past few years, but on the White City development area, which is one of the largest brownfield development sites in Europe. If jobs are going from the area, what will happen to the buildings there? What will happen to Television Centre, which is the hub of that area, or to the local economy—the people and businesses who are dependent on the BBC?
	As I said, many independent media companies are now, rightly or wrongly, big employers in the area and an established part of the local commercial sector, in TV, in radio and in support services. They, too, are suffering from uncertainty. For example, there is clear guidance in the agreement on the role of independent providers in television, but not in radio. I am not advocating greater externalisation of BBC radio services, although some of my constituents would wish me to do so. However, the fact that radio gets a second-class service—it is always an afterthought in these respects—creates uncertainty for the directly employed staff as well as for contractors. That point is highlighted by the fact that in the agreement independent radio producers are lumped together with online services, with which they have no connection whatsoever.
	I do not want to trespass too much on the House's time. In conclusion, I believe that the thrust of Government policy—to safeguard the licence fee and thereby to safeguard the independence of the BBC—is right. However, in return the BBC has to earn the trust of its viewers, its staff, and its neighbours, wherever it intends to end up. At the moment, as far as I can see, it will still end up substantially in my constituency.

Adam Price: Yes. I am aware and strongly supportive of the call for the promotion of Ulster Scots, whichthe European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages recognises. The Government have signed up to the European charter, and the agreement with the BBC will require the trust to have regard, among other things, to the importance of appropriate provision in minority languages. I therefore hope that the BBC Trust will move forward in enhancing its promotion of the Ulster Scots language and culture in Northern Ireland.
	If I can receive my national and international news in the Welsh language from the BBC's current provision, why cannot I, as a citizen of Wales, receive my national and international news in the English language through a Welsh sixth television news service, which reflects all the information and news that is relevant to the citizens of Wales? A similar demand has been made in Scotland. The problem lies at the centre of the BBC, not in BBC Wales or BBC Scotland, where there is untapped potential and some frustration at their inability to move forward with provision.
	On "Newsnight" recently, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) commented on the attitude of the BBC in London, which referred to Scotland as "up there" and to the Scottish as "them", as if they were not licence fee payers or citizens in the same United Kingdom multinational state. Only the creation of distinctive Scottish and Welsh news services can overcome that problem.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who presented his case with his usual vigour and humour. His was one of several memorable speeches in today's debate. I will always remember two in particular. As a loyal Labour Back Bencher, I was shocked by the relish with whichmy right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham(Mr. MacShane) announced his first ever rebellion against the Labour Government, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will not use her new powers too harshly against him. I will also always remember the passionate defence of the cultural role of the BBC put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Perhaps he was fortunate—unlike poor old Zidane last night—that there was not a fourth official present to provide the benefit of an action replay at the crucial moment.
	One of the iconic BBC programmes, "Top of the Pops", is coming to the end of its 40-year run on30 July. In recognition of that, I want to give the House my top 10 reflections on the BBC charter process. When I mentioned this idea to a colleague in the Tea Room this morning, he said, "Well, at least you're not giving them your top 40!" I will try to be brief. For those of us of a certain age, who probably reached our peak at the same time as "Top of the Pops" did, its passing will mark a moment.
	My first reflection is on the role and the reach of the BBC in our society. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, 94 per cent. of people still come across some form of BBC output each week, and 80 per cent. watch BBC1, the most popular channel in the nation. Nearly 70 per cent. of all BBC income is still spent on original programming, a far greater proportion than that spent by any of its commercial rivals. The proportion of Sky's income that is spent on original programming is very low indeed, for example.
	The BBC still has a hold on all generations in this country, despite its worries about what the young think of it, and whether they consume media in a different way. The other day, I happened upon a survey of3,000 graduates, including engineering, business and humanities students, asking them who they most wanted to work for. The answer from all categories was the BBC. I do not think that it was the prospect of Jonathan Ross-style salaries that attracted them so much as the reputation of the BBC and the opportunities that it offers to excel across a whole range of activities.
	My second reflection is about BBC sports coverage. When Ofcom carried out a survey of what was important to viewers about the BBC, its news coverage was No. 1—and quite rightly so, when we consider the values of BBC news. However, BBC sport was at No. 2. It is worth reflecting that, last night, 18 million people watched the World cup final on the BBC, which was a record for more than 25 years.
	Those water-cooler moments that hon. Members have been referring to are one part of BBC sport; another is the encouragement of minority sports. The Paralympics, for example, would never have taken off in the way that they have without BBC coverage. With the demise of "Grandstand", it is important that those who are charged with maintaining the reputation of BBC sport—which comprised nearly 1,700 hours, or nearly 10 per cent. of the output, on the main two channels last year—should continue to encourage minority sports. They should show them particularly on their interactive coverage. One that appears to be somewhat under threat at the moment is the BBC's racing coverage, which is consumed by many people. There are rumours that that coverage is to be cut in half. I hope that the BBC will look carefully at the coverage of all minority sports.
	Thirdly, I want to reflect on the argument of crowding out. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said that in one sense it is the purpose of the BBC to crowd out in order to influence the market. That is true, but we should not underestimate the potential for the BBC to participate along with the private sector. I shall give two examples that have already been mentioned this evening. There are the plans for BBC local television and the protests of some local newspaper owners about such television, local websites and so forth. It is interesting that in Birmingham, where this is being pioneered, Trinity Mirror, which publishes the main evening newspapers in the west midlands, has entered into a partnership and drawn up a joint letter of intent with the BBC. That is one example of where the BBC and the private sector can have a positive impact by working together.
	Another example, which we heard about earlier, is the Beethoven downloading, which happened last year when, following the BBC's Beethoven week, millions of people downloaded the composer's work. It is well worth remembering that that was done in partnership and in consultation with some of this country's major orchestras and big music companies. CD sales of Beethoven increased by about 100 per cent. in the wake of that. Both the BBC and the private sector learned the lessons: they saw a market for downloading classical music that no one had thought existed before. When Bach week followed Beethoven week, it was done in a very different way.
	Next, just a word or two on governance. I believe that this is a major and welcome departure for the BBC. The new trust and executive are now two separate entities. No longer will the chairman of the trust be the chairman of the whole BBC; he will be the voice ofthe licence fee payers in a way that the chairman of the governors never was. He will have to consider the interests of the licence fee payers not just in respect of the BBC's output, but in relation to the BBC's impact on other public service broadcasters as well. It is a radical departure, which is symbolised by the different secretariat that the BBC Trust will now have and by its physically different location.
	My fifth reflection is on local radio, which has come up just once in our debate so far when my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to it. This week, BBC Radio York—my local radio station—is the proud host broadcaster of the Great Yorkshire show, which illustrates the part that BBC local radio plays in many of our local communities. One of the BBC's plans for expansion is to fill in the gaps of local radio up and down the country. In Yorkshire, that will mean having a station in Bradford as well as Leeds, which is well worth supporting.
	Next, on the opposite side from BBC local radio is the BBC World Service, BBC World and the new experiment of Arabic television. BBC World Service radio has recently gained record listening figures and BBC Arabic television is a worthy experiment that should perhaps have happened long ago. I hope that, if we go down this route of the Foreign Office and the BBC further expanding into television, it will not be at the expense of further BBC World Service radio channels. I believe that BBC World, which is run on a commercial basis, has improved over the years and it is meant to come into profit in 2010. It is well worth reflecting that it is the only news channel in the world that is trying to run on a completely commercial basis, whereas al-Jazeera and the channels recently launched in France are very much the recipients of public subsidy.
	My seventh point is about BBC Resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned the importance of the BBC's training function. In the rush to maximise the use of independent producers, which clearly have a role in BBC output, we should not forget the importance of the core in-house service. Bearing in mind the question mark about whether BBC Resources will be privatised after 2007, it would be odd if the BBC had accountants and lawyers directly on its staff, but no longer had technicians. The BBC Trust should think carefully about that—it should perhaps do a value-for-money study—when so many big corporations are bringing such functions back in house.
	In direct response to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr, I hope that moving BBC Radio 5 and BBC Sport to Manchester is just the start. Some time during the next charter period, I would like to see one of the big channels moved somewhere in the UK. That would be a major step forward and a major way of combating the London-centric focus, to which, like any London-based institution, the BBC occasionally falls prey.
	My ninth point has not arisen in the debate so far—the BBC's coverage of religion. We sometimes talk about great moments in sport, but in the last two or three years, the BBC has provided great coverage of religious events, whether it be the death of the Pope or the recent enthronement of the Archbishop of York. It is important that the BBC continues to provide coverage of all the religions in today's Britain. Last year's "The Monastery" was an innovative programme, which brought an understanding of religious life to a wide and popular audience. It is also important to show programmes relating to worship at religious festivals.
	Finally, the dumbing down of the BBC has come up during every charter period over the years. I noticed that the  News Chronicle of 1958 said:
	"The Sound Broadcasting Society, which originated in the campaign to save the Third Programme from mutilation, is still keeping up a spirited fight against the declining standards of the BBC...It is sad that the BBC should have fallen so far from the high standards it once set itself."
	To a certain extent, it was ever thus: we always look back to a golden age of the BBC. I contend that, perhaps, we are not too far from such a golden age today, with the expansion of Freeview, the success of the BBC's interventions on to the internet, the respect in which it is widely held and the quality of much of its output. BBC radio is still slightly embarrassed to have more than 50 per cent. of the total audience share, largely because of the quality of its output. Perhaps, today, we are in such a golden age. I always remember the words of Dennis Potter, who said of the BBC's mission:
	"Switch on, tune in and grow."
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) pointed out earlier, one of the great things about the BBC is that it can interest people in things that they never realised that they were interested in, and long may it be so.

Daniel Kawczynski: Yes, absolutely, that is true, but I should like students to have free licences none the less.
	The right hon. Member for Rotherham(Mr. MacShane) spoke extremely well in the debate. Like me, he is of Polish origin, and I know from speaking to him that he played his role in supporting Solidarity in Poland in the early 1980s. I also know that the BBC played its role in the overthrow of communism not just in Poland but throughout eastern Europe. Some of my earliest childhood memories are of speaking to relatives in Poland who tuned into the BBC, late at night in the darkness of their homes. Of course it was illegal to listen to foreign broadcasters in those days, but the BBC still brought great hope to many people who were under communist tyranny, for which I thank it, as I am sure many other people do.
	I praised the BBC in the debate a few weeks ago. I am pleased that many hon. Members have saluted the BBC this evening—it deserves it—but the right hon. Member for Rotherham made a very good point when he suggested that there should be a register of interests for BBC journalists and executives. I found that point very interesting. Hon. Members try extremely hard to be beyond reproach and to register all our interests, and senior people in the BBC, who also have such a public role, should declare their interests.
	I shall mention two issues that I feel very strongly about and which have already been raised in this debate—the first being this man called Jonathan Ross. My wife and I watched his television programme at our home in Shrewsbury and I was appalled by this—how can I describe him?—cad and bounder's interviewing the leader of my party in the most gratuitous and appalling way. I took great exception to Jonathan Ross ridiculing in a very public way a very important historical figure—an 80-year-old lady who is no longer in public life to the extent that she was. I found it totally unacceptable that somebody in the BBC could speak about her in that way. I very much hope that the BBC is listening not just to me, but to other Members who have spoken out against Jonathan Ross's behaviour.
	The second issue is religion, which has been briefly mentioned already. As a Roman Catholic, I sometimes get genuinely very upset by some of the critical ways in which religion is covered. It is occasionally covered with a great deal of disrespect in modern life, particularly on television. Catholics do not always jump up and down when they are offended, but that does not mean that we are not offended. In future, the BBC needs to think very carefully about how it criticises religion. There have been many vociferous protestations from members of the Sikh community—and others—when their religion has been denigrated in some way.
	Locally, we in Shrewsbury listen to BBC Radio Shropshire, which I must say is an excellent station. It is impartial and balanced and the quality of its local news is exceptional. It keeps people updated, particularly the elderly and those in remote rural areas who cannot get around. In preparation for my speech, I spoke to some senior citizens who live in Halfway House, in a very rural part of my constituency. They wanted me to make the point that they benefit greatly from local radio, particularly those who live by themselves and are lonely.
	Before today's debate, I was grilled on Radio 4's "Farming Today" about various issues that I am raising as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on dairy farmers; the interviewing was very robust. When we politicians are interviewed, reporters are robust, which is healthy for our democracy. I get frustrated by John Humphrys when I think that he is being rude or unfair to a colleague, but such harsh scrutiny is important. My concern is that if it is excessive—asMr. Humphrys has been in certain cases—it could put people off and stop politicians going on such shows.
	I am concerned about the growing number of occasions when very junior Ministers are put up for interview, rather than a Secretary of State. In fact, on many occasions now, no Government spokesman is available to speak to the BBC, which presents a very bad image to the public. The BBC and the Government have a duty to ensure that there is always representation from the highest levels of government to counteract and answer questions. Ministers must realise their duty to appear on hard-hitting interview shows, such as "Newsnight"—which has been referred to as "Newsnicht"—with Jeremy Paxman. I rarely see the Prime Minister being interviewed by hard-hitting interviewers; he tends to go for the softer, easy options.
	There has been little explanation during this debate of the governance of the BBC, yet that issue is of the utmost importance; I hope that the Minister will talk further about it when he sums up. During the tragedy surrounding Dr. Kelly, the BBC governors acted very badly. I would argue, controversially, that many were not up to the job. Chaos reigned at the BBC when the Government turned up the heat on that organisation. As other Members have stated, we need governors who will stand up to Governments of whatever colour, and who will stand up for the independence of the BBC. The BBC Trust and executive body need to represent real people and be independent. How will they be chosen? What remit will they have? I hope that the Minister will respond to those questions.
	The auditing of the BBC must be far more open to public scrutiny, and Members of the House have a role to play in that. I hope that the Minister can also provide a glimmer of hope about that. On the licence fee, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that continuous above-inflation increases are unacceptable. The House of Lords has recently recommended that licence fees should not increase beyond the rate of inflation. I believe that Parliament must vote on licence fees if they are significantly above the rate of inflation.
	During the previous BBC debate, I spoke about how my wife and I enjoy romantic costume dramas. We believe that there should be more of those on the BBC. This evening I am going to speak about children's programmes. My wife and I are expecting our first child in October, and are looking forward to it very much. We are very concerned about the state of children's programmes. With our forthcoming child in mind, we watched some BBC children's television programmes on Saturday, and I was appalled by the violence and aggression shown, both between children and from outside groups towards children. I was absolutely amazed. In my day, we learned to make things while watching children's programmes.  [Laughter.] It was all very innocent—Labour Members laugh, but it was. That is what children are meant to watch. The programmes now have a lot of violence and mindless aggression. I hope that the BBC will take note.
	The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, was excellent. I strongly encourage the Minister and the Government to listen to the comments of someone of such quality and experience. I must disagree with him on one point, however. He said that the BBC should not get involved in television and radio in foreign countries—but I believe that such involvement is a good thing. We must challenge the global television empires and networks being built up by media tycoons. One way to do that is for the BBC to start branching out to other parts of the world, such as India and China. I would like the BBC to operate more in China, which is a great opportunity and growth market for our businesses.
	Many British institutions are so popular globally and have such a good brand that we can export them abroad. For example, Shrewsbury school is so popular with foreign students that a Shrewsbury school is being opened in Bangkok, because so many Thai people want an English education. So, too, our British Broadcasting Corporation should branch out to bring our perspective to people around the world and to promote our way of life.

John McDonnell: As I know that another Member wants to speak, I shall be as brief as possible. I have sat through the whole debate, and it has been like an elongated version of "Points of View"—absolutely fascinating. I must admit that at one point, having drifted off, I was woken by the "Kenneth Tynan moment" when my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) intervened. On another occasion, I was roused by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter), representing what is now described as cognitive capitalism.
	As secretary of the all-party National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, I am aware of a number of worries about the new agreement for BBC staff. Throughout the debate we have all extolled the BBC's virtues, such as the high-quality service that it provides. It has been suggested that it should expand into different parts of the world, become involved in different services, and link up with the private sector in future joint operations. I think we can all agree that the BBC's quality is based on a long tradition of high-quality professionalism among its staff—a professionalism that has given us world-leading programmes and a service that is second to none, described in the House on other occasions as a jewel in the crown of public services.
	Discussions with staff have revealed fears thatthe new agreement will threaten their jobs and professionalism and undermine their skills. They are concerned about the intervention of Ofcom and the development of the window of creative competition, or WOCC—"Doctor Who" has been mentioned, and its scriptwriter must have hauled that one off the screen as well—about their non-representation on the trust, about the grotesque top salary increases, and now about advertising on the World Service.
	We have heard a good many anecdotal suggestions today that if Ofcom did not intervene, the BBC would somehow "crowd out" private sector services from the market. However, no concrete evidence has ever been produced in any research study by Ofcom itself. An Ofcom study that did take place in 2004 concluded that there was not
	"sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of overall 'crowding-out'".
	Since then no individual instances investigated by Ofcom have proved that the BBC has somehow affected private sector operations.
	Now that Ofcom is included in the agreement, market impact assessments must ensure that there is complete transparency. In my dealings with Ofcom in the NUJ parliamentary group, I have not found its role in seeking to protect public services in the ITV system to be particularly effective. We have had a number of debates in the House in which, on a cross-party basis, we have raised issues with Ministers about the loss of local production, and in particular the loss of local news services through ITN, as a result of Ofcom's failure to fulfil its task and to display any teeth in controlling the cutting of such services by the private sector.
	Ofcom will be one of the organisations that the BBC will be required to consult on codes of practice in any area where competition may arise. Let me issue a plea for full and adequate consultation with the trade unions representing BBC staff in the discussions that Ofcom undertakes with the BBC, especially as the process may result in the loss of their jobs. I am not sure why the Government have taken the Ofcom route when the BBC is already subject to competition law and the operation of the Office of Fair Trading. I do not understand why a special regime is needed for the BBC, as opposed to other public services.
	As for the window of creative competition and the potential increase from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. in television services going to the private sector, the concerns expressed by staff need to be examined. It is feared that it may, in the long term, undermine the skills base and potential creativity and innovation in the BBC. Yet again, there has been no independent research to justify that increase in the privatisation element, and no independent research on the quantification of the increase from 25 per cent. to50 per cent. Moreover, there is substantial evidence—which I am happy to submit to the Minister—that when work has been outsourced from the BBC, the working conditions of the staff involved have deteriorated. Problems with wages, and even with health and safety matters, have been raised consistently by individual unions.
	In addition, the pensions assurances given to staff who were outsourced to companies have not been abided by. Many who are retiring are being offered benefits and pensions significantly below those that they were promised. I urge the Secretary of State to consider the detailed implementation of the agreement, so that where the window of creative competition applies and enables a wider range of services and facilities to be outsourced, there is adequate consultation with the unions and the representatives of the work force that will be affected.
	The composition of the trust has been raised by various hon. Members. There is disappointment that there will not be a representative from the trade union movement on the trust itself. Historically, there has been a commitment that there should be some representative of the work force on any governing body of the BBC. That has not happened under the new regime. That means that there will be a loss of expertise on the trust in terms of the debates on the longterm future of the BBC.
	The National Union of Journalists and I support the licence fee and congratulate the Government on maintaining it as the basis for the funding of the BBC, but there needs to be a wider debate during the mid-term review of the new regime. We need to discuss shortly how that review will be undertaken and what consultations will be undertaken as a result of the review.
	It is an obscene disgrace that the management have increased their salaries over the past three years by25 to 30 per cent. overall, while at the same time cutting jobs and reducing salaries for their workers. A ballot will take place on strike action as a result of the job cuts taking place for the NUJ. I have no doubt that that ballot will support industrial action, and that part of that result will have been caused by the reaction tothe directors awarding themselves such significant increases.
	Increasingly, the incursion of advertising into the BBC is a concern, although a lot of concern has been expressed this evening about the BBC's own adverts. The BBC News international website is to include private sector advertising. One hundred and fifty staff involved at all levels of seniority have written to the director-general of the BBC to say that that will affect the global reputation of the BBC for independence and impartiality, and that it is a step too far in terms of the development of alternative sources of income for the BBC.
	I pay tribute to the BBC, to the work that it has done over the years and to the service that it has provided. That is based on the commitment and professionalism of the staff themselves. With any reform of the BBC and designation of its future, we need to take the staff with us. Job cuts, privatisation and Ofcom interference will undermine the confidence of the staff in the long-term security of the BBC. There will be industrial action in the next few weeks—as a result, I am sure, of the reaction of staff to some of the Government's proposals. I support that industrial action, and I will be appearing on the picket lines in support.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and to pay tribute to the work he does for the NUJ. As the offspring of two members of that trade union, I know about the good work that it has done.
	May I also say how grateful I am to follow on the Conservative Benches my good friend, the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who, as usual, made a charming and effective contribution to the debate? He and I sat together through the previous BBC debate and we have sat together through this BBC debate. It is worth recalling, today of all days—hug a hoodie day—that it is the younger Members of the House who are prepared to sit through these debates from beginning to end and to listen to the arguments. I hate to say it but, apart from the hon. Memberfor Hayes and Harlington and the Front-Bench spokesmen, it is the older Members who drift in and out, taking bite-sized chunks out of the debate. Therefore, I hope that the House will listen to what we have to say, although I must stop sitting next to my hon. Friend, because it has got to the stage where people are mistaking us for each other.
	This has been a wide-ranging debate, covering the licence fee, salaries, governance and the relationship between the commercial sector and the BBC. It has also covered the general nature of public service broadcasting. For me, it was an extremely important debate, with a seminal moment. I was not born when John F. Kennedy was shot and I was being born when Robert Kennedy was shot, and I never thought that I would be present in the Chamber to hear the f-word uttered. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase(Dr. Wright) breached that boundary. He had his Kenneth Tynan moment, although it may have been his Jonathan Ross moment—

Edward Vaizey: I was aware of that figure. Loth as I am to praise the Prime Minister—I will praise the office of the Prime Minister—it seems astonishing that the chief executive of a regulatory body is earning double what the Prime Minister earns.
	We have talked about the licence fee and the amount of money that the BBC is asking for. Again, there is consensus in the House that the amount of money that it is asking for is simply excessive. It has already said that it is making efficiency savings of 4 per cent. It is asking for an increase in its licence fee of RPI plus2.3 per cent. In effect, therefore, it is asking for an increase of about 6.5 per cent. in the licence fee. We also know that many of the figures that the BBC comes up with are literally written on the back of an envelope. For example, the move to Salford was meant to cost £600 million, but has now been downgraded to£400 million. There is no scrutiny of those figures by the National Audit Office. They are just broad-brush ones. The Government and the House should be extremely sceptical about the amount of money being asked for.
	I agree with the sentiment, which I think is shared by most people who have contributed to the debate, that digital switchover should be funded as a separate item—not only because it is clearly a matter of public policy, but for tactical reasons. We all know that the reason why the BBC wants the money for digital switchover is that once switchover has switched over, the BBC can keep the money. It is a fantastic way of increasing one's budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who used to be a bookmaker, is not in the Chamber, but I would take bets that, once digital switchover has happened, the BBC will not turn up at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and say, "Here's a cheque back for next year because we have done digital switchover."
	In conclusion, as they say, there have been many wonderful contributions to the debate. There have also been some shocking moments from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and a shocking moment from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who has spawned the "Save Jonathan Dimbleby" society on the Conservative Benches. We will be going to a small flat in Hammersmith this evening to begin to photocopy the leaflets. A consensus has emerged that the BBC is a well-loved institution with support on both sides, that it makes a very valuable, clearly defined, but also indefinable, contribution both to our public life and to broadcasting and the media, but that its power continues to increase.
	The BBC cannot win because, as it has been pointed out, when it is not doing well, we criticise it for not being able to compete with the private sector, and when it is doing well, we criticise it for crowding out that sector. However, in a flourishing and vibrant digital age, the BBC is in danger of squashing a lot of minnows that could well grow into impressive companies. The increase to the licence fee must be kept to a minimum, and the Government should perhaps examine again the slightly half-baked governance procedures that have been put in place.

Malcolm Moss: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), who made a powerful and telling speech. I commend him on his patience and long suffering because in our last such debate, he was also the last Member to be called before the wind-ups. It was all the better for waiting for such an excellent contribution. This is our third such debate in as many weeks. I welcome the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), across the Dispatch Box. He will wind up the debate, and I hope, for the first time, we will get some answers to the questions that have been posed.
	We are essentially debating the future governance of the BBC in the form of the new agreement between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC that will complement the charter for the next10 years, which is being applied for. It was helpful that the BBC's annual report was to hand during the debate, so we are grateful that its publication was brought forward.
	The report is impressive and it underscores the fact that we are indeed fortunate, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said, to havesuch an internationally acclaimed public service broadcaster. We welcome the decision to renew its charter. However, the report highlights problems relating to audience share and reach, and it shows that cost-effectiveness in the BBC is going in completely the wrong direction.
	Given such difficulties, it is more than ever necessary to get the structure and regulatory framework absolutely right. Concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the charter renewal on the table is less than perfect. The trust will not be radically different enough from the old BBC board of governors. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for Wantage,and the right hon. Member for Rotherham(Mr. MacShane), pointed out that the BBC will be both judge and jury under the proposed structure.
	There has been a missed opportunity to give Ofcom increased regulatory powers over and above those already given to it, and that point was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for East Devon and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Such increased powers would have meant that the BBC would be seen to have a totally independent, impartial and rigorous regulator. Given that some members of the trust have been appointed and the trust is already in place before the beginning of the new charter period, it is vital that that group of people demonstrates a clear commitment to transparent independence from management and acts objectively in the interest of licence fee payers and, as many hon. Members have pointed out, competition in public service broadcasting. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) highlighted the fact that there is no adequate appeal process against a decision of the trust, save going to judicial review, which is of course both a costly and protracted process.
	It would be churlish not to recognise that positive progress has been made in the new agreement to make the BBC more accountable and transparent. Such progress includes the introduction of service licences, the duty on the trust to have regard to competition and the introduction of the concept of a public value test, including a new role for Ofcom on the joint steering group to measure the market impact assessment. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford pointed out, the composition of that group will be 50 per cent. from the trust and 50 per cent. from Ofcom, with alternating chairmen. To many hon. Members that does not look like the BBC is giving up its control-freak tendencies. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen), and for Selby (Mr. Grogan), there will not be two separate chairs for the BBC and for the trust. Indeed, paragraph 10 on page 9 of the revised draft royal charter states:
	"The Chairman of the Trust may also be known as the Chairman of the BBC."
	As I pointed out earlier, the BBC has proposed the idea of a service licence for all its services as a major new way of improving governance and setting a standard against which a particular service can be measured, but although such service licences will apply to all TV and radio services, they will not, at this stage, apply to the BBC's ever-expanding web-based services. The BBC believes that a single service licence will suffice to cover all its internet and mobile services, but it ignores the way in which those services could affect—often detrimentally—the development of similar services in the private sector; my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage pointed in particular to BBC jam. For example, the BBC's mobile services will bring its digital news output into direct competition with newspaper and magazine publishers in what is, for the BBC, an entry into an entirely new market.
	It is unfortunate that the debate on charter renewal is taking place separately from the debate on the licence fee negotiation, as the BBC's future role is inextricably linked to the question of funding. The fact that the announcement on the licence fee has been delayed until the end of the year suggests that agreement is a long way off. It is in the interests of licence fee payers and the creative media industries for the funding settlement to be made in the context of both the charter of renewal and the potential impact on the country's public service broadcasting ecology. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said, it is ludicrous for us to order from the menu without knowing whether we can afford to settle up when the bill arrives.
	It is clear from what the Secretary of State said herself that the BBC's bid for a licence fee increase of 2.3 per cent. above RPI each year does not meet with the Government's approval—a point made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. The case is not helped by the conclusions of two separate reports—one commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport from Panel, Kerr and Foster, and the other by ITV from Indepen—that the BBC could meet its objectives while offering licence fee payers better value for money. The BBC's figures were seriously challenged, and confidence was not shored up when it backed off from some of its own calculations. One particular example springs to mind—the cut in the costs of moving to Manchester.
	The BBC's bid for £6 billion extra funding over the period of the next licence fee would result in the fee rising to about £180 by 2013. Many speakers, particularly the right hon. Member for Rotherham, emphasised the problem of the affordability of that form of regressive revenue collection for many of their less affluent constituents. Many people find the TV licence fee too high already, and the prospect of £180 for a licence fee fills them with concern, if not dread. That sum, of course, does not take into account the assistance package for digital switchover, which will be completed by 2012. The cost for that, as the director-general, Mark Thompson, has said, could be
	"on the far side of a billion".
	While we are on the subject of analogue switch-off and digital switchover, figures on what the Treasury will charge for spectrum have been bandied about. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford tonight confirmed that a Treasury spokesman says that there is no intention whatever to charge for the new spectrum that will be released. The BBC has factored £300 million into its calculation to cover the cost, and it is important that when the Minister responds, he clears up the matter so that we know whether the Treasury will charge for the service or whether the £300 million can immediately be taken out of the BBC's calculations, thereby reducing the proposed increase in licence fee.
	With digital switchover, the Government have embarked on what was described as one of the biggest engineering projects that the country has ever undertaken. It goes without saying that the decision was taken by Government without consultation with many other parties. The BBC was very keen on it, until it was told by the Government that it would be collecting the money through the licence fee and running the assistance package. It could add, as we have said, a huge amount of money to the licence fee requirement. It will be interesting to see what calculations the Government have done on what the licence fee will be in 2012 if, as has been stated, the extra cost of the assistance package is over £1 billion.
	That is such a huge potential financial burden that no final agreement can be reached on the licence fee until that figure has been accurately calculated. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon asked, can the Minister give the House a figure, estimated or otherwise, for the projected targeted assistance? If he cannot give us that figure tonight, can we have a guarantee that the figure will be made available and the calculations behind the figure made transparent before any licence fee settlement is announced?
	We have already noted substantial confusion in the licence fee debate on both sides of the argument. That is why several hon. Members suggested a key role for the National Audit Office in scrutinising both the finances of the BBC and the setting of the licence fee. The halfway house agreed to date with respect to the involvement of the NAO is unacceptable. Licence fee payers will never be satisfied that they are getting value for money, particularly in a scenario of rapidly rising licence fees, unless they get the independent and rigorous scrutiny that only the NAO can provide.
	It is Parliament's responsibility to ensure that the BBC is independent, well regulated, transparent and funded to an appropriate level. The charter, unfortunately, fails to give Parliament, as the House of Lords Committee recommended, a greater role in debating and voting on vital matters, such as funding and the charter renewal. The Opposition support the BBC, but we have made many constructive suggestions to ensure that the licence fee does not get out of control and that the BBC continues to give an outstanding public service.

Shaun Woodward: My hon. Friend makes a telling point and he would always be a welcome guest.
	The past 10 years have seen a transformation in the market in which the BBC makes and transmits its programmes. The next 10 years will see a transformation or, more probably, a revolution. Asthe hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) observed, that revolution comes because of on-demand services, the competition and the revolution not only in what we watch but in how we watch it, and in where we will demand that content. In such a revolution, this charter and the agreement work to set the framework for the BBC for the future. It is absolutely right that we spend so much time getting this right and ensuring that the level of the licence fee is absolutely right. Despite pressure for an expedient settlement by Opposition Members, the Government will work to do what is right for the licence fee payer and for the BBC and its competition.
	Speaking of expediency— [Interruption.] On cue, the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) asks the question, and I come to his contribution. His attitude to the BBC is, in itself, something of a dual transmission, bordering on two contradictory messages. On the one hand he values the BBC, and just as he auctions off his admiration he proceeds to bring his gavel down and hammer it hard with the other. On the one hand he says that he wants less regulation, less interference, and then proceeds to offer the House a prescription for, in his own words, what more should be done.
	The hon. Gentleman demonstrates little or no trust in the new trust to regulate the BBC, and he would do well to focus on the substance of the changes, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who rightly described the change to the trust from the governors as a radical departure. This evening we note the views of the hon. Gentleman's party on regulating BBC salaries and setting ceilings on remuneration. We also note—hon. Members could not really have missed—the Opposition's obsession with Jonathan Ross. They complain bitterly about his salary, yet they seem desperate to promote the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on the programme. I can only ask, Mr. Speaker, that if the right hon. Gentleman in the future seeks your advice on what to wear on a future Jonathan Ross programme, you will tell him to leave his hoodie at home.
	If the debate offered us insight into Conservative obsessions this evening, it also offered us a brief glimpse into contemporary Conservative party policy-making by the Opposition. We were treated this evening to a new policy from Conservative Members as they put forward their policy for a free television licence for all students. It was interesting for us to see that emerge in the double act performed by the hon. Members for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). All I can say is that we will cost their new proposal with relish.
	Listening to the hon. Member for Wantage is always a delight, no matter where it takes the listener. We have travelled far and wide with him this evening across a broad range of subjects. At the end of the day it was really in the hands of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, the Select Committee Chairman, to give us the sober and serious considerations of policy this evening. He concerned us with points of real substance rather than a relentless preoccupation with the luncheon engagements of the Secretary of State and drinks parties to which he may not have been invited.
	I should begin by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the public value test will make a significant difference to the way in which the BBC operates in terms of future services, and despite the temptation on his part to suggest that the BBC would be moving into the business of antiques dealing or car dealing, I see absolutely no reason for it to move in that direction.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation—

Shaun Woodward: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman, who I do not think has been in the Chamber for the debate this afternoon; none the less, as we have time, I am more than happy to take his question. The answer is that if the BBC believes that it is a service that would serve the public well, yes. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that the new codes set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the agreement and in the charter will be looking for public value tests. That is a new and important departure. Indeed, in answer to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, the policies put forward in the Green Paper and confirmed in the White Paper, the charter and the agreement are firmly based on extensive consultation and research. The policy on governance is built firmly on the principle set out by Lord Burns and the independent panel. The policies on service licences, the public value test and the new competition framework reflect and recognise the concerns expressed most notably by the commercial sector.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford asked about market impact assessments. The agreement makes it clear that the content of the MIA is for Ofcom alone. The main role of the joint steering group is to agree terms of reference and a timetable. That will help to ensure that the market impact and public value assessments are compatible and enable the trust to make judgments on whether a proposal should go ahead.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about there being a limit to the BBC's commercial activities, which has understandably concerned several hon. Members. There will indeed be a limit. Its commercial activities must comply with the criteria for commercial services as set out in clause 69 of the agreement. In particular, they must fit with the BBC's public purposes as embodied in the charter.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) asked about increasing the target for audio description. While I am happy to write to him on that subject, I can reassure him that Ofcom is reviewing its statutory code on television access services, and we expect a response to that later in the year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) was right to talk about the BBC, as it sits in his constituency and he looks after White City. In response to his broad question about the Government's objectives for television and radio, they are entirely the same— namely, to create the best programmes, for the best value, for their respective audiences.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) began by giving a somewhat gloomy forecast about the BBC being too London-centric. I do not agree with that, but I enjoyed everything that he said. It is not often that Lord Reith and Abba are thrown into the same sentence, but he managed it. The hon. Gentleman referred to not wanting to hear services from elsewhere that do not relate to Wales. The future of the BBC's digital services should go some way towards dealing with that. With the prospect of people being able to enjoy up to 300 channels via all sorts of new services that come about as a consequence of digital services and convergences within digital services, he will increasingly have greater choice of local services. He ventured to criticise the BBC's work in advancing digital services. I believe that the pioneering and innovative work that it is doing will deal with those criticisms and satisfy many of his constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly observed that the debate resembled "Points of View". He talked about working conditions. I would be happy to look with him at a survey of working conditions published a few weeks ago in  Broadcast magazine. It reveals some areas that we would do well to consider, particularly in relation to women returning to the workplace after they have had children, and to young people. In a field where there may be 200 applicants for every job, young people often find themselves working long hours in difficult conditions for no money whatsoever. That argument does not specifically apply to the BBC, but across the board in the broadcasting industry. I was well aware of those conditions when I worked in the television industry in the 1980s, and I think that they still exist. As television grows and competition increases, there may be pressure to drive down the salaries of those working in the industry. We should work together to address that. I would welcome working with my hon. Friend and the unions on that matter.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the proposals for a "window of creative competition", which aims to generate 50 per cent. of production from the BBC's in-house capacity. A further 25 per cent. will be open to competition, including from BBC in-house producers, and there is also the statutory 25 per cent. guarantee. The implementation is up to the trust, which will doubtless take account of his concerns.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) raised several issues. I hope that, at the end of the evening, he will change his mind and not abstain. I accept that his questions are reasonable and that his views are sincerely held, but we disagree with some of his conclusions. Although those views are held by some, we did not find them in the substantial body of work that we conducted with licence fee payers. Indeed, they were prepared to pay even more for the BBC.
	However, if licence fee payers were to pay more,they wanted value for money and efficiency to be requirements of the BBC and those running it. The Government should meet those requirements in sorting out the charter and the agreement and settling the licence fee. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider whether abstaining best serves the interests of the BBC and the licence fee payer. Conservative Members' view of the BBC is clear. Although they claim to support it, they are prepared to undermine it at every turn. I therefore ask him to reconsider.
	The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) moved all hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) rightly picked up on it. My hon. Friend reminded the House of the BBC's role in entertainment, and his love of sport, including football, is well known. However, he also shared with us his experiences as somebody who could not be persuaded to go to university but gained much of his education through the BBC. I am sure that many hon. Members know exactly what I mean when I say that the BBC has served us all well in terms of our collective education. My hon. Friend's characteristic remarks were self-effacing, generous and absolutely right. I only hope that Opposition Members pay as much attention to them as to their obsession with Jonathan Ross's salary.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby(Mr. Mitchell) made a fine speech, as perspicacious as it was welcome. He was right that decisions about BBC programmes are best made by the BBC and nobody else. He is also right that the public need the confidence of knowing that the settlement of the licence fee will be properly handled and effectively audited. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has those arrangements in hand.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) spoke of his admiration for the BBC. He was right to talk about its role in a fragmented world. He spoke—at moments, in a Leavisite way—about a common culture. I thought that he might start telling us about a common pursuit. However, I suspect that his remarks will be remembered as much for his French colloquialism—in case you have not heard about it, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) will sneak up to you later and give you full particulars—and his fond recollection of "Yes, Minister" as for the rest of his comments.
	That brings me to the Liberal Democrats. They asked whether we had squared the respective circles of efficiency and quality. The answer to that is yes. They viewed it as a weakness of Michael Grade's that he could understand criticisms of the BBC. If one can see one's weaknesses, that is a strength and we should give Michael Grade credit for his extraordinary work in leading the BBC in the past few years. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) asked whether the trust would be effective and whether we would trust the BBC. The answer is that we will, as the public do.

Annette Brooke: I am going to concentrate during this debate on the bus services in my constituency, although the problems do cover a wider area, as reflected in the vast number of letters in our local paper, the  Daily Echo, and Saturday's front-page headline: "Bus Rage!"
	My constituency is a mix of urban and rural areas and is served by a number of councils. For the purposes of this debate, the relevant councils are Poole unitary and Dorset county council. The main bus company is Wilts & Dorset, which, has been owned by the Go-Ahead Group since 2003. The current outrage among my constituents occurred after the interruption of a new bus timetable on 4 June. I have in fact received few representations from the most rural parts of my constituency, simply, I believe, because the services for places such as Bere Regis were already so infrequent that it was impossible to cut them any further.
	The recent problems have occurred in the less rural parts of the eastern end of the county council area, and in the adjoining north Poole part of my constituency: Corfe Mullen and Upton, in the county council area; and Merley, Broadstone, Creekmoor and Alderney, in north Poole. Where we used to have a poor bus service for many people, we now have a dire or non-existent one. As elderly people are saying to me time and again, "What is the point of a free bus pass if there are no buses that we can use?" Of course, it is the most vulnerable who have been severely affected: elderly people who do not have a car; people who travel to work who cannot drive, perhaps because of visual impairment; the young; and those who cannot afford a car. People who cannot now travel to work are saying, "Shall I move, change my job or perhaps not work at all?"
	My constituency is already an area of very high car ownership, particularly because of the existing difficulties associated with travelling by public transport, but I now know of some families who have purchased a second car because of the current situation. It makes a mockery of the Government's national policy to encourage more people to use public transport and to reduce car travel. It is of great significance to young people—how can they have things to do and places to go if there is no transport to get them there?
	Wilts & Dorset bus company's new owners introduced their first route revision in 2004, another in 2005, and in June this year, a complete recasting of the network. The service revisions have been designed to improve the efficiency of the company by reducing costs, as the bus company tells me, or possibly, I suppose, by increasing profits. From Poole's perspective, the company's strategy has been the simplification of the network, which is intended to make services more direct and reliable to compete with a private car. Bus services have been diverted off side roads that penetrate estates to run down prime transport corridors at an increased frequency. The use of modern, bright and air-conditioned vehicles aims to offer comfortable, accessible and safer travel, in an attempt to attract the motorist.
	In terms of overall passenger growth, the company increased its patronage in the borough of Poole by more than 30 per cent. between 2004 and 2006. Unfortunately, the strategy of route simplification is fundamentally at odds with Poole's accessibility goals, as many elderly or disabled passengers cannot access the new direct services. They simply cannot walk to the main road bus stop or return with shopping bags. The most recent route revision in June saw approximately 10 per cent. of Poole's 850 bus stops left potentially without any form of bus service. That included what would once have been considered good bus-operating territory—large housing estates and tracts of what I would call "bungalow land". The county council concurs that the overarching feature is the withdrawal of services from parts of routes not considered to be part of the core network, and that the focus is now on fewer high-frequency routes on main roads, with less emphasis on penetrating residential and rural areas. I believe that that has happened in other parts of the country, but our area started from such a low base, with poor provision.
	One could easily think that the route changes had been triggered by the free bus pass for elderly citizens—the cuts came about more or less at the same time—as the areas with the biggest cuts are typically where senior citizens might live. I have questioned the bus company at great length about whether it is satisfied with the negotiations over free bus pass travel. I have been assured that it is satisfied at the moment with the amount of money that councils are paying it, so we must assume that it is a sheer coincidence.
	I appreciate that the Minister does not want to sit through a long catalogue of details about particular bus services affecting communities of which she has probably never heard. However, I want to describe the situation in just one community that, I believe, is the worst hit.
	Corfe Mullen is right on the edge of the Poole conurbation and is served by Dorset county council. It has a population of 10,000 people and had an estimated 80,000 bus trips per year. It had five buses per hour, allowing residents to travel to Poole, Bournemouth and Wimborne to access a wide range of services. With very little notice, Wilts & Dorset bus company announced that it was ceasing all services from 4 June. As one might imagine, the local community was devastated by that news, and I have received hundreds of representations just from that community. As a temporary measure, the county council has managed to transfer £27,000 from subsidising evening and weekend services to subsidise a skeleton service until September. That means that there are now only two buses per hour, plus some limited peak-time direct buses to Bournemouth, with the previous service to Wimborne not running at all.
	Corfe Mullen has limited facilities, so the loss of the route to Wimborne, a nearby market town where the administrative offices of East Dorset district council are sited, has created great difficulties. Access to Poole main hospital is difficult, as is access to the local college. It is basically impossible to travel by bus to various industrial estates.
	The current situation is difficult, as has been illustrated by residents. One writes
	"I am chronically ill, disabled, and living on the minimum pension, I rely totally on buses. We no longer have a direct service to Wimborne which is our nearest town centre and to which we need to travel regularly for doctor, hospital, dentist and shopping. Until June 4th the direct bus from my home took8 minutes, now there are only 2 indirect routes, one takes47 minutes, the other takes anywhere between 15 and 35 minutes and if a connection is missed possibly 2 hours and 5 minutes."
	Another resident writes:
	"Please restore our local bus service, so we can get to work, college, school, banks, doctors, hospital etc. Why should Wilts and Dorset take away my right to work. I work full time and3 evenings a week, I will be a pensioner soon but cannot live on a pension alone.
	My son works in Bournemouth and is finding getting to work very difficult indeed."
	Another writes:
	"My son is a student at Bournemouth and Poole College and relies on public transport—he has almost been thrown off his course due to the unreliability of the buses."
	Travelling to the college is a complex process. A change of buses is necessary. There are a number of courses for young people with special needs at the college. Many could cope with one bus, but coping with more than one is difficult.
	Poole hospital workers and patients have been affected. There are whole areas of housing where people purchased their properties because they were served by a bus route. Now a long walk is needed for people to gain access even to limited services. The evening bus services are very limited, and people feel that they are prisoners in their own homes.
	That is the situation now. What will happen in September, when the current arrangement ends? Wilts & Dorset could refuse to continue to operate the current skeleton service, and give notice of its intention to stop. At that point, what could Dorset county council do? It could consider tendering services in Corfe Mullen for the first time, but it tells me that its bus subsidy budget was overspent last year. That means that funding is not currently in the base budget, and cuts in other areas would be required if the base budget could not be increased. The council has not generally gone along with subsidising routes other than Sunday and weekend services, and I believe that it is concerned about achieving value for money, given the dominance and power of Wilts & Dorset. It has suggested to me that the current review of all the services might be able to identify possible savings, and that there might be consultations with Poole borough council; but I fear that the problem will simply be pushed from one council to another, and that no overall solution will be found.
	Another option suggested by Dorset county council is that it could rework the whole scheme, and—using subsidy initially, and perhaps purchasing a vehicle—could work with another company and eventually convert the service into something commercially viable. Potentially 80,0000 passenger journeys could be regained, but the process would take time and involve up-front costs.
	Poole has given lifelines to several communities by subsidising additional routes with another much smaller company. The borough's limited budget for subsidising bus services has also traditionally been targeted at providing evening and Sunday services. However, since the radical June 2006 network revision, it has been seen to be necessary for officers to let numerous contracts for additional services to cover gaps in the commercial network during the day.
	One of those services has been a great success, wending its way through residential areas, stopping off at Poole hospital and calling at Tesco. It is performing above expectations, and is already carrying more than 100 passengers a day, although at present it runs only three times a day. I have had the most wonderful letters from elderly people who thought that they had no bus service, and then discovered the small bus service subsidised by Poole council. They say that the driver is wonderful and so kind, and that it is saving their lives. Their one request is for more than three buses per day. Currently they reach a place, and then have to return within 40 minutes. That looks as though it will be possible. I am not sure that the county council is prepared to take such an approach.
	Why are we in this mess? Obviously, there is the general strategy, but there is also the fact that, without a doubt, the bus company has faced the rising costs of drivers' wages, fuel in particular and insurance, which are undermining profit margins. That is its argument for taking that action. At a Local Government Association meeting in December, it was flagged up to councils that contract prices would increase significantly and that budget provision would have to be made. Increases in the price of the tenders of between 10 and 20 per cent. were expected, I believe, so how much do my local councils spend on subsidising bus services? These are interesting figures. I will look just at the figures on subsidising buses, not taking on board the provision of bus shelters, advertising and school transport.
	In 2003-04 the borough of Poole spent about £564,000; in 2004-05, its expenditure approached £600,000; and in 2005-06, it was £653,000. The improvement in resources falls back in 2006-07, just when it appears that more money is needed, to just over £611,000. Obviously, therefore, there is an issue here. What sort of figures does the Minister think will be necessary to support bus services, given that the commercial bus companies, which since the Transport Act 1985 do not have to provide any social routes, are moving forward in terms of hoping to increase their passengers, but backwards in terms of vulnerable residents?
	We should bear in mind the fact that the population in the county council area as a whole is approaching 400,000, whereas the population of Poole is about 140,000. We are looking at bus subsidies going straight to the bus operators. In 2003-04, the spend by Dorset county council on subsidised bus services was around £900,000; in 2004-05, it was only £838,000; in 2005-06, it was over £1 million; and in 2006-07, it was over£1 million. When I asked how much was spent in the eastern part of the county, which is more densely populated for the most part, the figure for 2005-06 was only £116,000. The figures that I have been given show that that is a change of 315 per cent. on the previous year. That shows that the county council has had a different approach to supporting bus services, using its rural grant in possibly innovative ways, but now we are facing this crisis, there is a problem with the level of funding.
	Are my councils allocating enough? Is it so difficult to work in partnership when one company is dominant? People are concerned that perhaps Corfe Mullen is being used almost as a ransom by the bus company. The figures from the bus company this morning make it clear that it was making massive losses on the services that were provided, but it is unsustainable for the community to be left in this position.
	The bus company is responding a little—perhaps it could respond more—by saying that perhaps it got that bit wrong. It is important that I keep on making representations to the bus companies. There are other issues across my constituency. For example, tokens are given to those elderly people who are too disabled to use the bus in the Dorset county council area but not in the Poole area. That is causing some unrest. If there are buses, elderly people can use their bus passes earlier in the day in the Dorset county council area than they can in the Poole area.
	The main point that I want to raise with the Minister is: are the councils allocating enough of their resources? My councils would say that they cannot allocate any more because the Government do not give them sufficient funds. The county council in particular is reviewing all its expenditure and proposing many cuts, because its expenditure commitments are rising at a rate of 7 per cent., but its projected income is rising at only 5 per cent. The county council will not find it easy, therefore, to allocate more resources to address that serious problem. What advice can the Minister give to the councils and what help can the Government give them, financially and in the provision of support for partnership working? I hope that the Minister will be able to help my constituents who are upset and outraged by the situation.

Gillian Merron: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the important subject of bus transport in her constituency. I agree that buses are a crucial element in meeting the nation's transport needs. With public sector support for bus services now totalling more than £2 billion a year, they clearly have a very high ranking in our transport priorities, for many of the reasons that the hon. Lady mentioned.
	Over the past few years, with the industry and local authorities working together, we have made some good progress in many respects, with record levels of investment by industry and Government, and new initiatives and partnerships that have increased bus use in many areas. The Government's massive increase in our provision for concessionary fares for older and disabled people has also been a part of that.
	Of course, there is room for further improvement. What has been happening in the hon. Lady's constituency is an example of the more mixed picture nationally. In parts of the constituency, in particular Poole, we have seen investment by the bus operator, leading to significant increases in bus use. But the other side of the picture is the difficulty in sustaining local services and ensuring access for all, especially in the more rural areas of the constituency. Operators and local authorities always have faced, and always will face, decisions on how best to allocate resources.
	As the hon. Lady said, in parts of the area there has been a good local bus network supported by the Go Ahead Group. It has invested £11 million in new buses and launched the award winning More bus network. Bus patronage rose on those routes by 30 per cent. across Poole last year, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, and the local authorities have played their part by providing new bus stop infrastructure to raise the general standard of services.
	Bus patronage growth in rural Dorset has outperformed the south-west regional average, and that of England. We welcome those positive trends. However, I recognise that there have been difficulties, including the problems elderly people have in accessing some bus services. I also understand that following a review of local services some destinations have had services withdrawn. Indeed, I am aware that both Dorset county council and the borough of Poole have had many letters from constituents concerned about recent changes.
	As is always the case, difficult challenges have to be faced in maintaining rural public transport servicesin the face of competing priorities for funding. I understand that Poole council has taken prompt steps to restore services to a number of destinations that no longer had a service, and that it is also carrying out a thorough review of its bus subsidy provision. What priority to give to supporting bus services is of course a local decision, and I know that the council has had some interesting debates about the reductions in funding for supported services in the borough.
	I want to make direct reference both to the considerable Government funding for buses in the hon. Lady's constituency and to the role of local authorities. For our part, we have for some time recognised the particular needs for bus support in rural areas, which benefits from the main Government sources of funding for buses—the bus service operators grant—and the Government's revenue support grant to local authorities. Both represent major investment.
	The bus service operators grant provides a rebate of about 80 per cent. of the duty paid by bus operators on the fuel they use; in the case of environmentally friendly fuels, the rebate is 100 per cent. That contributes to the financial viability of many rural services. However, conventional bus services are not always the most cost-effective way of meeting rural public transport needs. Community transport makes a significant contribution to meeting those needs.
	As well as the benefits of that general support, we have long recognised the particular needs of rural communities by providing separate specific funding for rural bus services. Since 1998, they have benefited from the rural bus subsidy grant. In its first year, the grant provided £32 million to local authorities for new bus services in rural areas. Since then, the grant level has been increasing and it is now more than £54 million across England, providing for 2,000 rural services and more than 30 million passenger journeys a year. I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that that is a considerable support to our rural communities. Funds are allocated on the basis of the number of people living in rural areas within each authority.
	Since 1998, Dorset has received just under £7 million of the grant for rural bus services and Poole council has received about £89,000. Dorset receives almost£1 million a year, which provides more than 30 services in the county. The grant can be used not only for conventional buses but for a wider variety of flexible or demand-responsive services. The local authority is of course best placed to decide how to use those funds and which services to support. In addition to that grant, all authorities can use their own resources to support bus services, and the bulk of local authority support for buses comes from the Government's revenue support grant.
	I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the rural bus challenge and Kickstart funding that we have provided to support innovative schemes in rural areas.Between 1998 and 2003, challenge funding provided £110 million for 301 schemes, and those financial resources enabled many local authorities to try out more innovative schemes to address rural transport needs.
	In Dorset, the rural bus challenge funded the Blackmore Vale accessible community transport scheme, which was awarded nearly £500,000. The award-winning Jurassic coast links service, developed in partnership with Devon county council, also benefited, with £665,000 of rural bus challenge funding.
	Since 2003, we have used a new approach called Kickstart, which provides pump-priming funding for services that have the potential to become self-sustaining after three years. I am sure that the hon. Lady and her constituents would agree that it is disappointing that Dorset was not able to submit more successful bids during the six years that the rural bus challenge funding was available, and similarly that its bids for Kickstart funding have not been successful.